Re: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers
My two cents worth, I remember the long dah =0, A=1 and N=9 being used on the ham bands sometimes, way back in the middle ages (1940s). But not long ago I upset a guy on 40m by giving him a RST report of 57A, (A= auroral tone). He thought I meant that his tone was sixty-cycle or less, very rough and broad (571). We made up. 73, Geoff GM4ESD - Original Message - From: David Toepfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:29 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers 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)). ___ 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
Re: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers
--- 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. dt . ___ 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
Re: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers
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
RE: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers
KXBill wrote: The practice of cut numbers dates back to WW2, maybe further.After that, it was a common practice on commercial circuits. - I've held a commercial CW license since the 1950's. While I wasn't working as a commercial CW op all the years since, I do have experience with army, marine and aircraft CW operations and have listened to the traffic on those bands over the years. I sure never heard the use of such abbreviations used on any of those circuits. In both services it was absolutely mandatory to ensure 100% perfect copy of messages, and non-standard characters were carefully avoided. What was carried forth into radio usage was the old land Morse symbol for zero, which is a l-o-n-g dash. Lots of Hams and a few commercial operators have used that since the earliest days. Since modern keyers won't make the proper long dash, I have noticed many (most?) Hams simply substitute a T for a zero. That's FB if there's context for it such as PWR HR 1TT WATTS, just as RST 5NN is pretty clearly 599. Still, I'd have been in deep doo-doo if I had tried to use that sort of thing on the Army nets, and while I occasionally heard it from a shipboard operator on the marine bands I never used it there. I'd bet if you asked the FCC if it was legal to use cut numbers for your call sign you'd find that you are asking for a citation for failing to identify properly. Some military and government circuits in which the same ops were on watch at the same times and only passed traffic between themselves or between a regular consistent small group of ops may have developed some special usages. Those are also the exceptions who often became speed demons running at 30 or 40 wpm. But they were a very exclusive and small club. It's possible that some of them developed special characters, but they were definitely not normal commercial usage. The marine bands and the bulk of the commercial circuits were very careful to use only standard international Morse for maximum efficiency. Requests for fills cause delays many times longer than the time lost using standard characters, just as we were careful to work at the speed of the slowest operator. On commercial merchant marine frequencies and on the army nets we seldom got over 20 wpm, and very often had to follow a shipboard operator on a straight key at 10 or 15 wpm. After all, back then we had to *communicate* by CW. We couldn't log onto the internet and search the databases to figure out what the op meant by a call sign sent using a strange assortment of dits and dahs that didn't fit any known call sign format. We had to stop everything and ask for fills if the op didn't know enough to do it right. Ron AC7AC ___ 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
Re: [Elecraft] C W question/Cut numbers
I read recently that a VLF station in Russia UT0 something received permission to use the long T instead of the 0 for QRSS. I remember when I was a novice in the 60's being told never to use the long T in a callsign. The ID question is interesting. I know that CW holds a special place, but there is no out-of-mode ID requirement for digital modes such as PSK, as long as the modulation is publicly described. CW is a digital mode no matter whether it is Morse or International Morse or Japanese Kana Code, ergo there *ought* to be no CW ID requirement for International Morse with T instead of 0 as long as there is no intent to obscure communications, merely to facilitate it. Ought to, but I doubt that OOs will see it that way because of the strong position of International Morse Code for CW. And I suspect the FCC would not like to have us bring them such problems either. Leigh. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:20 am, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: I'd bet if you asked the FCC if it was legal to use cut numbers for your call sign you'd find that you are asking for a citation for failing to identify properly. ___ 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
