On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:29:57PM -0800, David Toepfer wrote: > --- Doug Faunt, N6TQS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As I understand it, cut numbers are only used where there's no > > ambiguity. There is certainly ambiguity possible in callsigns, [...] > > But when giving a signal report or sending the zone as part of an > > simple contest exchange, cut numbers are certainly appropriate. And > > any CW operator should be aware of them. > > I agree completely. Of course, a long dah is not necessary in these > situations, since the lack of ambiguity allows us to just send T for 0, A for > 1, ..., and N for 9. > > But I guess that was the problem that the long dah was trying to conquer, that > is, to allow cut numbers in ambiguous situations. And I'll bet it was the > influence of Landline/American Morse proficiente who introduced that, since > the > long dah was an actual element (eg. L and 0 (zero)). > > Either way, I would nto advocate it in ambiguous situations.
Of course, it is a bit tough to send a long dah with an electronic keyer, which may partially explain the increased use of T. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
