Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-07-19 Thread Karl Larsen

Christopher A. Kantarjiev wrote:

After many months, this thread rears its ugly head again :-)

At the time, I said that I would take a crack at updating "Your Novice 
Accent" and collecting resources for the new ham who is trying to get 
proficient at CW.


I decided, after a while, that updating YNA was something I didn't 
want to try, but Dan KB6NU has done so at 
http://kb6nu.com/your-novice-accent/. By all means, take a look.


Instead of trying to make a coherent article, I did the 21st century 
thing of collecting a bunch of links and stitching them together into 
a web page with stream-of-consciousness text. Tom N0SS and Fred K6DGW 
were a great help in this endeavour. Please take a look at 
http://www.dimebank.com/cak/k6dbg/k6dbg_cw.html and send me any 
comments and criticism you might have...


Always learning,
73 de chris K6DBG
   Hi Chris, I teach the code and have gone through the Koch and 
several other things to the Chuck Adams CD-ROM. It happens that making 
the CD-Rom is a problem if your not a computer geek. I am one of those 
and so I had the Students buy their own MP3 players and I gave them the 
CD-Rom.


   It was not perfect but it was good. Out of 9 students 3 quit after 
the first day. One student was 6 years old and she was ALSO learning the 
Letters and Words at school. She had trouble, after hearing the CW for g 
figuring out how to write g :-)


   I set up a VE session right after the class which was 3 weeks, 5 
days a week for 1 hour, and 4 passed the 5 WPM code AND the General 
written by taking the tests on the QRZ web site.


   I think the idea of starting to learn A at 15 WPM is a good idea. 
Only one person had trouble with the speed. The serious problem is the 
person who will not LEARN to get the CW from the same part of the brain 
we store how to write g :-)


73 Karl K5DI


___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-07-18 Thread Christopher A. Kantarjiev

After many months, this thread rears its ugly head again :-)

At the time, I said that I would take a crack at updating "Your Novice Accent" 
and collecting resources for the new ham who is trying to get proficient at CW.


I decided, after a while, that updating YNA was something I didn't want to try, 
but Dan KB6NU has done so at http://kb6nu.com/your-novice-accent/. By all means, 
take a look.


Instead of trying to make a coherent article, I did the 21st century thing of 
collecting a bunch of links and stitching them together into a web page with 
stream-of-consciousness text. Tom N0SS and Fred K6DGW were a great help in this 
endeavour. Please take a look at http://www.dimebank.com/cak/k6dbg/k6dbg_cw.html 
and send me any comments and criticism you might have...


Always learning,
73 de chris K6DBG

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-22 Thread Fred Jensen

N2TK, Tony wrote:
> Why even send the call of the station you are calling, especially
> if it is a contest? He knows his(her) call.

Months ago, I started the thread in the subject line, it got beat to 
death, and I'm surprised it got resurrected.  I'm not surprised, however 
at how it has morphed.


On the current and hopefully transient subject:  A station who wants to 
win in a contest wants to make sure that A) he has your call right;  B) 
that you have his right;  C) you got his exchange right; and D) that you 
submit your log.  He undoubtedly believes he can copy your exchange 
perfectly.


He can't do anything about "D", and if you QSL his exchange, he has to 
assume you got it right, or at least think you did.  The ideal and most 
efficient contest exchange is then:


When you call him, he replies "  K"  If he wants to 
be polite, he replies " TU  K".  At this point, you 
reply " R  K"  If you want to be polite, you reply 
 R TU  K"


Note that your reply is the only time he gets to hear you send your 
rendition of his call.  We all know he knows his call ... well if he's a 
charter member of SOC, maybe not, but he probably thinks he does anyway. 
 What he really wants to know is that you got his call right, so you 
tell him by sending it.  If you'd also like to win, it's important that 
he correct you if you got it wrong, and this is his and your one and 
only chance.  Some contests assess higher penalties for busted calls vs 
busted exchanges.


Note also that some contests (e.g. Sprints) REQUIRE that you send his 
call, whether or not you think he knows it, or, I guess, that you do too.


Best Regards,

Fred K6DGW
Auburn CA CM98lw
SOC # 
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-22 Thread N2TK, Tony
Why even send the call of the station you are calling, especially if it is a
contest? He knows his(her) call. And in contesting why send QRP, unless the
contest requires it? It just slows things up. The person on the receiving
end is going to pick out the loudest and shortest call first. Also there
seems to be more than one definition of QRP. It would seem what one
considers to be QRP is most important to the person who is running QRP. So
therefore you don't need to send it. When you are on the side calling CQ you
can't tell by signal strength if the station calling you is running full
power, has big antennas, running mobile or QRP. The ionosphere is a big
equalizer depending on the band, time of day, where the signals are coming
from, etc.

There is nothing wrong with being a traditionalist. It just may mean you
don't get through the pileup as soon. And greater chance your call will be
copied incorrectly. One thing that I can't figure out is when someone gives
my call a few times when calling me and sends their call one time. I'm not
sure what that is about.

I do not consider myself a good CW op. I wish I were. But CW is my favorite
mode. So when I operate off shore and several are calling at once I am just
trying to get a few letters out of the mess if the signals aren't strong.
Think how much more confusion is added when you are sending " AA4LR  DE
AA4AK/QRP AR" instead of  "AA4AK".

Steve, it seems you have discovered the best way to get the quickest
response.


73,
N2TK, Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen W. Kercel
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM
To: Bill Coleman; Sandy W5TVW
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


 Just how much time does sending a "DE" or a "K" take?

 Not much, but NOT sending them takes less time
 Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
 -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

   Bill and others:
   I am very much a traditionalist on CW operating procedure. However, in
   contesting  I  find  that  a standard formatted call (such as AA4LR DE
   AA4AK  AR,  or  even  worse,  AA4LR  DE AA4AK/QRP AR is ineffective in
   attracting  replies.  Typically, the rate conscious big gun contesters
   hearing  several  calls  at  once  instinctively  answer the call that
   finishes first.
   To  test  this notion, I've tried various combinations of standard and
   abbreviated  call  formats in contests. When I send a single unadorned
   AA4AK and nothing else, the rate at which I receive replies in contest
   goes up dramatically.
   73,
   Steve
   AA4AK
___
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


___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-22 Thread Stephen W. Kercel

 Just how much time does sending a "DE" or a "K" take?

 Not much, but NOT sending them takes less time
 Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
 -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

   Bill and others:
   I am very much a traditionalist on CW operating procedure. However, in
   contesting  I  find  that  a standard formatted call (such as AA4LR DE
   AA4AK  AR,  or  even  worse,  AA4LR  DE AA4AK/QRP AR is ineffective in
   attracting  replies.  Typically, the rate conscious big gun contesters
   hearing  several  calls  at  once  instinctively  answer the call that
   finishes first.
   To  test  this notion, I've tried various combinations of standard and
   abbreviated  call  formats in contests. When I send a single unadorned
   AA4AK and nothing else, the rate at which I receive replies in contest
   goes up dramatically.
   73,
   Steve
   AA4AK
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-22 Thread Bill Coleman


On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:


If you are a "DXer", how many times have you succeeded
with only a 'single' call in a big pileup?  You may have to send  
your call

a bunch of times,and/or be running a bunch of power.


I NEVER do this. I send my call once and then listen. I may only  
listen for a second or so, but I do listen. Then I'll send my call  
again and listen. In a hugh pileup, I might send my call 2-3 times,  
but for most "normal" pileups its only once.


The real LIDS are the guys who send their calls 3-4 times in a row,  
or continue to call and call and call and call, even when the DX has  
long since come back to someone else. Really poor operating practice.


However, contests, by and large, do not resemble DX pileup operation.  
Contest pileups share some characteristics with DX pileups, but they  
aren't the same.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-22 Thread Bill Coleman


On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:


Why get sloppy and why some guys trying
to run their keyers at 40 WPM?


I never send that fast, because I can't copy that fast. But, I have  
been known to run CW as high as 32 wpm. I do know guys that can go a  
LOT faster.



Why send your callsign just once
on the initial call?  Twice should be a matter of minimums,
 how does the sender know his signal is BOOMING in or in the clear?


If you get through, he's going to send your callsign back. If he gets  
it wrong, then you can send it again until he gets it right.


By and large, though, he'll get it right the first time.


You just have to ask him to repeat, which RUINS the "speed"
advantage, or wastes the time he's trying to save!


With contesting judging done by computers these days, it is much  
better to get things right than to do them quickly.



E-S-P-E-C-I-A-L-L-Y during a QRP contest!  Won't people
EVER learn?


Not everyone runs QRP in contests. And not every QRP signal is down  
in the noise.



Just how much time does sending a "DE" or a "K" take?


Not much, but NOT sending them takes less time

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-20 Thread Stephen Brandt
"Your Novice Accent" was originally printed, in QST, in the mid 1950's.  New
Novices were frequently sent reprints, by the league, shortly after they
received their Novice license.  It was reprinted in the 1990's.  Some of the
information found therein is a little dated, due to changes in technology.
One still couldn't go very far wrong if he or she followed it today.
Contests are a different ballgame.

73,

Steve Brandt N7VS

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Chris Kantarjiev wrote:
>
> > As a new CW operator trying to figure it out, I am quite sad that the
> > various ARRL Handbooks don't cover CW operating practices in detail.
> > I made this offer last time the topic came up, and will make it again:
> > if an experienced operator would be willing to work with me, I'd love
> > to write up a "current" version of "Your Novice Accent" - maybe
> > it's "Your 5WPM Accent" now?
> >
> > The idea would be to cover much the same topics as Your Novice Accent,
> > with modern updates, as well as covering common contest protocol.
>
> Since the original publication is on the web in many placesperhaps an
> addendum, rather than a re-write might work
>
> If you go that route, I'd be happy to give it some web exposure at
> as an addendum or link to the original article at
> www.zerobeat.net/novice_accent.html
>
> 73,Thom-k3hrn
> www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page,Drake Web Ring,
> QRP IRC channel, Drake IRC Channel, Elecraft Owners Database
> www.tlchost.net/hosting/  ***  Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
> ___
> 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
>


___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-19 Thread N2EY
In a message dated 4/18/06 9:58:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:


> On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:
> 
> > | However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the
> > | long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll
> > | answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?
> >
> > Perhaps no confusion to you, the sending operator, but a  
> > possible bit
> > of confusion to the operator who called CQ!
> 
> I and many others have THOUSANDS of successful CW QSOs using these  
> techniques.

Me too - running both QRP and 100 W

> 
> >  Firstly, let's assume you have imperfect propagation conditions:  
> > fading, static,
> > whatever.  You might miss my call or get it confused if I sent it  
> > just once.
> 
> On 160m and sometimes 80m, perhaps I'll double the call to AA4LR AA4LR.
> 
> If you only get part of it, you'll send the part you got: 4LR. I'll  
> respond with my full call again: AA4LR AA4LR. The more times we  
> repeat this, the more times I'll repeat my call.
> 
> > Anything else might likely lead to asking
> > you to repeat your callsign, which takes up even more time?
> 
> The point is, especially in a contest, the vast majority of the time,  
> the first call works. And this protocol works well when there are  
> multiple callers, too.
> 

Yep. 


> > Just a one time sent callsign IS bad operating practice and  
> > operating manners.

I disagree - and agree! See below.

> 
> Some of the very best operators I know are contesters, and they ALL  
> do this. It can't possibly be a "bad practice".
> 

I think it really comes down to "situational awareness" - matching the 
operating practices to the conditions.

Under contest conditions where the station holding the frequency is doing a 
run and the conditions are good, the single-call works wonders. At other times, 
long calls are what's needed. It all depends on the situation. The skilled 
operator matches the technique to the situation, rather than insisting on one 
size fits all.

In CW traffic handling, 35 years ago, I was taught to use an even briefer 
procedure during QNI. 

> > Contest conditions are usually frantic, crowded and many times  
> > plain RUDE.
> 
> Well, that's true.
> 

Maybe I'm missing something, because I really only do two contests seriously 
(FD and SS), but I find 99.9% of contest ops to be very disciplined and 
courteous. When VY1JA called for "QRP ONLY" in the CW SS


> > Such things as sections/states and unique member
> > numbers are exchanged.  In the peak of the QRM/QSB I usually always
> > send State and my number TWICE.
> 
> This is kinda a "QRP" mentality -- "I'm weak and in the noise, I  
> better be redundant." That's not always so. Low power and QRP  
> stations can have formidable and readable signals, given reasonable  
> antennas and fair to good conditions.
> 
> In some cases, such redundancy may be helpful, like on 160m. But,  
> mostly, it just wastes time.
> 

Again - it all depends on the situation.


73 de Jim, N2EY
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-19 Thread Thom R LaCosta

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Chris Kantarjiev wrote:


As a new CW operator trying to figure it out, I am quite sad that the
various ARRL Handbooks don't cover CW operating practices in detail.
I made this offer last time the topic came up, and will make it again:
if an experienced operator would be willing to work with me, I'd love
to write up a "current" version of "Your Novice Accent" - maybe
it's "Your 5WPM Accent" now?

The idea would be to cover much the same topics as Your Novice Accent,
with modern updates, as well as covering common contest protocol.


Since the original publication is on the web in many placesperhaps an 
addendum, rather than a re-write might work


If you go that route, I'd be happy to give it some web exposure at
as an addendum or link to the original article at
www.zerobeat.net/novice_accent.html

73,Thom-k3hrn
www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page,Drake Web Ring,
QRP IRC channel, Drake IRC Channel, Elecraft Owners Database
www.tlchost.net/hosting/  ***  Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-19 Thread Chris Kantarjiev
As a new CW operator trying to figure it out, I am quite sad that the
various ARRL Handbooks don't cover CW operating practices in detail.
I made this offer last time the topic came up, and will make it again:
if an experienced operator would be willing to work with me, I'd love
to write up a "current" version of "Your Novice Accent" - maybe
it's "Your 5WPM Accent" now?

The idea would be to cover much the same topics as Your Novice Accent,
with modern updates, as well as covering common contest protocol.

Please contact me off-list if you're interested.

73 de chris K6DBG
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-18 Thread Sandy W5TVW
We've been thru this before gentlemen.

In a VERY busy contest, there ain't no such thing as "a single frequency"
There is signals every 20-50 Hz!  The BIG 160 meter contests are 
examples of this.  If you are a "DXer", how many times have you succeeded
with only a 'single' call in a big pileup?  You may have to send your call
a bunch of times,and/or be running a bunch of power.  If someone calls me
just a single time and I send "QRZ", I expect the other chap to have
enough sense to send his call at least 2-3 times.  Usually because static is the
culprit or two or more callers QRMing each other.  Either way you gotta 
repeat the call. 
In a contest, the highly abbreviated procedures are commonplace,
but I still say it is lazyness or stupidity to apply the same logic to
an answer to an everyday CQ call.  Whoever isn't familiar with
the "protocol", it would behoove him to certainly learn it.
What's the problem with that?  It's just simple manners, like for example;  
Like learning not to pass gas loudly in church or on a crowded bus.
(to cite a rather crude, but typical situation)  If ARRL no longer
teaches good operating skills, find out from an old timer, what they
are.
Sorry for the tirade, but I feel very strongly about this and think it a
VERY large mistake that ARRL saw fit to take this section out of the
"Handbook".  Maybe its because there are more "LIDS" than "A1"
operators in Newington now?
73,
Sandy W5TVW
- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


| 
| On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:
| 
| > | However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the
| > | long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll
| > | answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?
| >
| > Perhaps no confusion to you, the sending operator, but a  
| > possible bit
| > of confusion to the operator who called CQ!
| 
| I and many others have THOUSANDS of successful CW QSOs using these  
| techniques.
| 
| >  Firstly, let's assume you have imperfect propagation conditions:  
| > fading, static,
| > whatever.  You might miss my call or get it confused if I sent it  
| > just once.
| 
| On 160m and sometimes 80m, perhaps I'll double the call to AA4LR AA4LR.
| 
| If you only get part of it, you'll send the part you got: 4LR. I'll  
| respond with my full call again: AA4LR AA4LR. The more times we  
| repeat this, the more times I'll repeat my call.
| 
| > Anything else might likely lead to asking
| > you to repeat your callsign, which takes up even more time?
| 
| The point is, especially in a contest, the vast majority of the time,  
| the first call works. And this protocol works well when there are  
| multiple callers, too.
| 
| > Just a one time sent callsign IS bad operating practice and  
| > operating manners.
| 
| Some of the very best operators I know are contesters, and they ALL  
| do this. It can't possibly be a "bad practice".
| 
| > Contest conditions are usually frantic, crowded and many times  
| > plain RUDE.
| 
| Well, that's true.
| 
| > Such things as sections/states and unique member
| > numbers are exchanged.  In the peak of the QRM/QSB I usually always
| > send State and my number TWICE.
| 
| This is kinda a "QRP" mentality -- "I'm weak and in the noise, I  
| better be redundant." That's not always so. Low power and QRP  
| stations can have formidable and readable signals, given reasonable  
| antennas and fair to good conditions.
| 
| In some cases, such redundancy may be helpful, like on 160m. But,  
| mostly, it just wastes time.
| 
| > Otherwise, you
| > have to ask for a repeat which wastes more time.
| 
| Fills can be done quickly and efficiently, too.
| 
| > | The old "Novice Accent" advice was to do 3x3x3 - CQ CQ CQ DE W1ABC
| > | W1ABC W1ABC repeated three times. Again, that was with a lot of guys
| > | still rock-bound. These days, a single 3x3 with a few seconds of
| > | listening seems more appropriate.
| > |
| > I agree LOONG CQ calls or doing a 3 X 3 format three times
| > IS...repeat IS a waste of time and "overkill".  Do the 3 X 3 and wait
| > 15-60 seconds and repeat the call.
| 
| We do agree on this!
| 
| >   We still have a few people who
| > have "vintage" transmitters that are crystal controlled, but sadly
| > very few people who "tune around", even a couple of kHz. with
| > the RIT control.
| 
| Or open up the filter bandwidth, at least.
| 
| >

Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-18 Thread Sandy W5TVW
AMEN!  I can't agree more with Mike!  Why get sloppy and why some guys trying
to run their keyers at 40 WPM?  Why send your callsign just once 
on the initial call?  Twice should be a matter of minimums,
 how does the sender know his signal is BOOMING in or in the clear?  
You just have to ask him to repeat, which RUINS the "speed" 
advantage, or wastes the time he's trying to save!  
E-S-P-E-C-I-A-L-L-Y during a QRP contest!  Won't people
EVER learn?

Just how much time does sending a "DE" or a "K" take?
73,
Sandy W5TVW


- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


| 
| On Feb 8, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
| 
| > IMHO, this practice [dropping DE and K prosigns in contests]
| > reflects badly on the contester (on his Morse
| > "professionalism," if you will).  Unfortunately, it also becomes  
| > for many a
| > bad habit carried over into routine operation.  We're only talking  
| > about
| > taking a *small* additional fraction of a second to send a complete  
| > and
| > proper exchange.
| 
| My point is that the extra prosigns aren't necessary in this case.  
| The contesters are already sending exchanges that conform to known  
| patterns -- the overhead isn't needed.
| 
| >   In reality, most contest time and energy is utilized
| > sending unanswered calls over and over and over and over.
| 
| But during the time that there are responders to those CQs, working  
| the callers quickly and efficiently can make a huge difference in  
| score. If several callers are there at the same time, they may not  
| stick around if the operator isn't super-efficient.
| 
| > It is unfortunate that contest and DX rules in general don't mandate
| > complete call sign exchanges by both stations, each containing both  
| > station
| > call signs along with the proper prosigns.
| 
| There are some contests which dictate the sending of both callsigns  
| -- the NA Sprint is one.
| 
| >   That would certainly be more
| > appropriate than the totally perfunctory 599 report usually sent  
| > with each
| > exchange.
| 
| Not all contests use a 599 report. Many have much more interesting  
| exchanges. NAQP, for example, uses the Name and State, Province or  
| Country.
| 
| Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
|  -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
| 
| ___
| 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
| 
| 
| 
| -- 
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/309 - Release Date: 4/11/2006
| 
| 
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-18 Thread Bill Coleman


On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:


| However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the
| long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll
| answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?

Perhaps no confusion to you, the sending operator, but a  
possible bit

of confusion to the operator who called CQ!


I and many others have THOUSANDS of successful CW QSOs using these  
techniques.


 Firstly, let's assume you have imperfect propagation conditions:  
fading, static,
whatever.  You might miss my call or get it confused if I sent it  
just once.


On 160m and sometimes 80m, perhaps I'll double the call to AA4LR AA4LR.

If you only get part of it, you'll send the part you got: 4LR. I'll  
respond with my full call again: AA4LR AA4LR. The more times we  
repeat this, the more times I'll repeat my call.



Anything else might likely lead to asking
you to repeat your callsign, which takes up even more time?


The point is, especially in a contest, the vast majority of the time,  
the first call works. And this protocol works well when there are  
multiple callers, too.


Just a one time sent callsign IS bad operating practice and  
operating manners.


Some of the very best operators I know are contesters, and they ALL  
do this. It can't possibly be a "bad practice".


Contest conditions are usually frantic, crowded and many times  
plain RUDE.


Well, that's true.


Such things as sections/states and unique member
numbers are exchanged.  In the peak of the QRM/QSB I usually always
send State and my number TWICE.


This is kinda a "QRP" mentality -- "I'm weak and in the noise, I  
better be redundant." That's not always so. Low power and QRP  
stations can have formidable and readable signals, given reasonable  
antennas and fair to good conditions.


In some cases, such redundancy may be helpful, like on 160m. But,  
mostly, it just wastes time.



Otherwise, you
have to ask for a repeat which wastes more time.


Fills can be done quickly and efficiently, too.


| The old "Novice Accent" advice was to do 3x3x3 - CQ CQ CQ DE W1ABC
| W1ABC W1ABC repeated three times. Again, that was with a lot of guys
| still rock-bound. These days, a single 3x3 with a few seconds of
| listening seems more appropriate.
|
I agree LOONG CQ calls or doing a 3 X 3 format three times
IS...repeat IS a waste of time and "overkill".  Do the 3 X 3 and wait
15-60 seconds and repeat the call.


We do agree on this!


  We still have a few people who
have "vintage" transmitters that are crystal controlled, but sadly
very few people who "tune around", even a couple of kHz. with
the RIT control.


Or open up the filter bandwidth, at least.


Anyway, the sum of it is, nobody seems like they are teaching ANY
really good operating practices anymore.


And we agree here, too.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-04-18 Thread Bill Coleman


On Feb 8, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:


IMHO, this practice [dropping DE and K prosigns in contests]
reflects badly on the contester (on his Morse
"professionalism," if you will).  Unfortunately, it also becomes  
for many a
bad habit carried over into routine operation.  We're only talking  
about
taking a *small* additional fraction of a second to send a complete  
and

proper exchange.


My point is that the extra prosigns aren't necessary in this case.  
The contesters are already sending exchanges that conform to known  
patterns -- the overhead isn't needed.



  In reality, most contest time and energy is utilized
sending unanswered calls over and over and over and over.


But during the time that there are responders to those CQs, working  
the callers quickly and efficiently can make a huge difference in  
score. If several callers are there at the same time, they may not  
stick around if the operator isn't super-efficient.



It is unfortunate that contest and DX rules in general don't mandate
complete call sign exchanges by both stations, each containing both  
station

call signs along with the proper prosigns.


There are some contests which dictate the sending of both callsigns  
-- the NA Sprint is one.



  That would certainly be more
appropriate than the totally perfunctory 599 report usually sent  
with each

exchange.


Not all contests use a 599 report. Many have much more interesting  
exchanges. NAQP, for example, uses the Name and State, Province or  
Country.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-09 Thread Cortland Richmond
"Mike Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> It is unfortunate that contest and DX rules in general don't mandate
> complete call sign exchanges by both stations, each containing both
station
> call signs along with the proper prosigns.  That would certainly be more

Since the FCC has few monitors who can copy CW any more, they are pretty
unconcerned how we ID.  Thus our procedures change to meet our own needs. 
Is someone giving away Maserati's? I'll show upand shout my name too; why
else would I be in the pileup?  Properly, this requires a "DE" before the
call, but I only need one of those after ten minutes -- and what the eye
(ear) don't see (hear) the heart (Engineer) won't grieve (miss).

FWIW, while the FCC may have given up on CW, the *FBI* had openings for CW
ops two or three years ago.  

Cortland
KA5S

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-08 Thread Ron D'Eau Claire
Jim, N2EY wrote:

Contesting is one way to build operator skills, by 
pushing yourself beyond the comfort zone. It's also one of the driving
forces 
behind improvements in ham rigs and techniques, such as the replacement of 
separates with transceivers.

Agreed absolutely and, as Jim went on to say, "With all due respect, the
first order of business is to define what 'really good operating practices'
are. Good ragchewing practices aren't necessarily good contesting or traffic
handling practices." 

I don't find it any more appropriate to transfer extremely abbreviated
operating styles to routine contacts that it would be for me to work a
station in the SS beginning, "HOWDY OM. TNX FOR THE CALL. FB QSA5 SIG HR.
GOOD TO WRK U...etc. etc..." 

Traffic nets are an entirely different story from both Contests and routine
QSOs. 

I don't see anything suggesting that when it comes to operating procedures
that "one size fits all". 

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, I've had it backfire on me when I thought a
station was giving me a short contest-type call after I sent a CQ only to
find out later that he was actually in a QSO that I could hear only one side
of. That's a very common situation on the HF bands. 

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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-08 Thread N2EY
In a message dated 2/8/06 12:45:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
> |
> | In contest operation, we'll dispense with the DE and K altogether.  
> | Millions of contest CW contacts are made this way each year, without  
> | sending both calls.

And without any confusion.

> | 
> Contest conditions are usually frantic, crowded and many times plain 
> RUDE.
> It is kinda like a cat fight with thousands of cats involved. 

In the contests I've worked for the past 38 years, (mostly CW SS and CW on 
Field Day) I've encountered very low levels of rudeness - and very high levels 
of operator skill.

 Even in contest
> 
> conditions, there are times for repitition.  A typical example is "my kind 
> of
> contest: a QRP event".  Such things as sections/states and unique member
> numbers are exchanged.  In the peak of the QRM/QSB I usually always
> send State and my number TWICE.  This makes things perhaps run a few
> seconds longer, but it makes the exchange much smoother,

Perhaps the most important skill in contesting is adjusting to the situation 
- knowing when to repeat and when not to, when to speed up and when to slow 
down, etc. No one method suits all situations.


 especially if
> 
> you are trying to operate a key and the rig with one hand and a 
> logging program keyboard with the other hand.  Otherwise, you 
> have to ask for a repeat which wastes more time.  
> 

Try doing it with a log sheet, dupe sheet, bug and manual TR! One trick I 
learned was how to send while holding a pencil because there's no time to put 
it 
down and pick it up. 

In CW SS, the exchange is quite long, too. You need to send and receive four 
pieces of information besides the callsign: Serial number, class, year first 
licensed, section. Band, time and date need to be recorded, but they're 
obvious, of course.

Abbreviated operating techniques are the norm in a free-for-all,pushing, 
shoving
> 
> contest.  

I find contests to be competitive but not pushing or shoving. I am always 
amazed at how stations sort themselves out to be about a 
good-crystal-filter-bandwidth apart.

I am always amused by the guy who is sending everything at 50 WPM
> 
> thinking he will get a higher QSO count by doing so!  Not everyone can do
> that speed with consistant accuracy.
> 

The trick is to adjust to conditions. 20 wpm once is faster than 35 wpm 
repeated. 

But if you toss in a couple of unneeded extra characters per QSO, it adds up 
over the course of a contest to a considerable amount of time and a 
considerable number of contacts not made.

For me, one of the glories of contest operation is paring down the exchange 
to the absolute bare minimum while still meeting all FCC requirements and 
getting the information across. Contesting is one way to build operator skills, 
by 
pushing yourself beyond the comfort zone. It's also one of the driving forces 
behind improvements in ham rigs and techniques, such as the replacement of 
separates with transceivers.

Contesting shows up all weaknesses and strengths in both station and 
operator. It's one time when the qualities of a rig like the K2 stand out above 
the 
run-of-the-mill rigs.
> Anyway, the sum of it is, nobody seems like they are teaching ANY
> really good operating practices anymore.  

With all due respect, the first order of business is to define what 'really 
good operating practices' are. Good ragchewing practices aren't necessarily 
good contesting or traffic handling practices.


ARRL has dropped the section
> 
> from the "Handbook".  They either don't give a damn, or they want to
> sell you an additional book to cover that subject!
> 

Or maybe they don't want to deal with the arguments

Having not taught a "ham class" for many, many years, I don't know
> 
> what is being skipped over these days.  

There were no such classes in my area when I was a Novice in 1967. I learned 
procedure by listening to other hams, and by reading books like "ABCs of Ham 
Radio", "Operating An Amateur Radio Station" and the ARRL Handbook.

btw, back then there was variation of opinion on what was good practice, too. 
Particularly on 'phone. Some things don't change...

73 de Jim, N2EY


___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-08 Thread Sandy W5TVW
| 
| Back in the day when most hams used crystal controlled transmitters,  
| and would tune 10-25 kHz either side of their CQ looking for answers,  
| the practice of answering a CQ with W5TVW W5TVW W5TVW DE AA4LR AA4LR  
| AA4LR AR made sense.
| 
| However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the  
| long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll  
| answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?
| 

Perhaps no confusion to you, the sending operator, but a possible bit
of confusion to the operator who called CQ!
 Firstly, let's assume you have imperfect propagation conditions: fading, 
static,
whatever.  You might miss my call or get it confused if I sent it just once.
I am not privy to local man made noise, static generated by local storms,
or other conditions at your location.  Why not call at least a 2 X 2 format at
least if you want to shorten things?  Anything else might likely lead to asking
you to repeat your callsign, which takes up even more time?

Just a one time sent callsign IS bad operating practice and operating manners.
I would compare it to saying your name once to a crowd of people standing on 
the corner!  Who, sir are you addressing?  If the people around me were
talking to each other, I may have to hear it two or three times to get
it right.  I might have a slight case of deafness.  All good reasons to AT LEAST
send my callsign once and repeat your callsign twice.  i.e.: W5TVW DE W4ABC
W4ABC K.


| In contest operation, we'll dispense with the DE and K altogether.  
| Millions of contest CW contacts are made this way each year, without  
| sending both calls.
| 
Contest conditions are usually frantic, crowded and many times plain RUDE.
It is kinda like a cat fight with thousands of cats involved.  Even in contest
conditions, there are times for repitition.  A typical example is "my kind of
contest: a QRP event".  Such things as sections/states and unique member
numbers are exchanged.  In the peak of the QRM/QSB I usually always
send State and my number TWICE.  This makes things perhaps run a few
seconds longer, but it makes the exchange much smoother, especially if
you are trying to operate a key and the rig with one hand and a 
logging program keyboard with the other hand.  Otherwise, you 
have to ask for a repeat which wastes more time.  
Abbreviated operating techniques are the norm in a free-for-all,pushing, shoving
contest.  I am always amused by the guy who is sending everything at 50 WPM
thinking he will get a higher QSO count by doing so!  Not everyone can do
that speed with consistant accuracy.

| The old "Novice Accent" advice was to do 3x3x3 - CQ CQ CQ DE W1ABC  
| W1ABC W1ABC repeated three times. Again, that was with a lot of guys  
| still rock-bound. These days, a single 3x3 with a few seconds of  
| listening seems more appropriate.
| 
I agree LOONG CQ calls or doing a 3 X 3 format three times
IS...repeat IS a waste of time and "overkill".  Do the 3 X 3 and wait 
15-60 seconds and repeat the call.  We still have a few people who
have "vintage" transmitters that are crystal controlled, but sadly
very few people who "tune around", even a couple of kHz. with 
the RIT control.

Anyway, the sum of it is, nobody seems like they are teaching ANY
really good operating practices anymore.  ARRL has dropped the section
from the "Handbook".  They either don't give a damn, or they want to
sell you an additional book to cover that subject!
Having not taught a "ham class" for many, many years, I don't know
what is being skipped over these days.  I do remember there were
some "Tech" class operator prospects that wanted to rush out and
buy a 2 meter HT to work their buddies on the local repeater and
not be bothered with any "protocols".  Kinda like a budding journalist
whose English grammar was terrible and he wanted to become the writer
of a serious column, but didn't want to brushup on his English usage!

73,

Sandy, W5TVW
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-08 Thread Mike Morrow
>In contest operation, we'll dispense with the DE and K altogether.


IMHO, this practice reflects badly on the contester (on his Morse
"professionalism," if you will).  Unfortunately, it also becomes for many a
bad habit carried over into routine operation.  We're only talking about
taking a *small* additional fraction of a second to send a complete and
proper exchange.  In reality, most contest time and energy is utilized
sending unanswered calls over and over and over and over.

It is unfortunate that contest and DX rules in general don't mandate
complete call sign exchanges by both stations, each containing both station
call signs along with the proper prosigns.  That would certainly be more
appropriate than the totally perfunctory 599 report usually sent with each
exchange.

73,
Mike / KK5F

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-07 Thread Ron D'Eau Claire
I've had it happen. It's not all that uncommon to hear only one side of a
QSO on a frequency, and I've answered a guy who simply gave his call after
my CQ, then found him in the middle of a transmission to someone else who I
couldn't hear when I stood by for his first transmission. 

So I generated unnecessary QRM on a frequency in use only because one of the
stations there either didn't hear me or didn't bother to respond to my QRZ. 

It doesn't take much to sign both calls. I agree that long calls aren't
necessary WHEN you are on the other station's frequency. I'll call someone
"W5TVW DE AC7AC AC7AC K" So what's a few seconds for clarity? That's why I
send my call twice. If his signal isn't so strong, I'll do a 2X2 call. 

After calling CQ, I ALWAYS tune up and down at least two or three kHz. Five
kHz if the band is quiet. And I'll make about 5 CQ's (listening for a bk if
someone is zero beat) then tune around for half a minute or so. Find lots of
rockbound GB & QRP stations that way, which makes for interesting QSOs. But
those stations need to call me half a dozen times to make sure I'll tune 'em
in before they stop. 

One of the nice differences between CW and other 'digital' modes is that CW
uses the same error-correcting system speech does - redundancy. And it's an
"intelligent" redundancy when the operator anticipates what the other
station needs such as copying in noise, or tuning to find the other station
off frequency. It's just like sending names and QTH's twice. The second send
is not needed 99% of the time, but it makes things faster and  easier
overall if the other op is distracted or there's some QSB/QRN/QRM at the
wrong moment. 

Now, I'll admit that my favorite CW rag chews go on while I'm puttering in
the shop! So I'm working on something while copying the other guy's
transmission and then sit down at the key for my turn. So I'm not looking
for series of very fast repartee during the QSO .

Ron AC7AC





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Coleman
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:08 PM
To: Sandy W5TVW
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT



On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:44 PM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:

> Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station
> just
> answers "W1ABC W1ABC K".  Who is he calling?  I usually respond by  
> sending: "QRZ?  QRZ? DE W5TVW K".
> Often the other station will simply send
> "W1ABC W1ABC K"  If the band is crowded, which it often is, this  
> had NOT
> told me he is calling me!  We have not yet established  
> communication so
> the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure.

Back in the day when most hams used crystal controlled transmitters,  
and would tune 10-25 kHz either side of their CQ looking for answers,  
the practice of answering a CQ with W5TVW W5TVW W5TVW DE AA4LR AA4LR  
AA4LR AR made sense.

However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the  
long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll  
answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?

In contest operation, we'll dispense with the DE and K altogether.  
Millions of contest CW contacts are made this way each year, without  
sending both calls.

> Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ 
> DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times.  Then a 5 second pause for 
> an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again!

The old "Novice Accent" advice was to do 3x3x3 - CQ CQ CQ DE W1ABC  
W1ABC W1ABC repeated three times. Again, that was with a lot of guys  
still rock-bound. These days, a single 3x3 with a few seconds of  
listening seems more appropriate.

>   One chap on 40
> a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times.  I couldn't
> stand it any longer
> and fired up the 1/2 Kw and called him.  He acted as if I was never  
> there.
> Either deaf or has his receiver somewhere besides his frequency.

I remember a moment from 30 years ago -- hearing a guy at 5 wpm send  
57 CQs in a row before I got tired and moved on. Never knew if he  
ever signed
> Are ham license classes teaching proper procedures anymore?

What we need is something like the "Novice Accent" brochure, but  
updated for modern procedures.
>

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
 -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
S

Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-07 Thread Bill Coleman


On Jan 14, 2006, at 10:21 PM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:


The Amateurs and airplane pilots seem the only ones who still use it.
(Yes, airplane pilots STILL have to use Morse to decode the aural
identification of DME/VOR/NDB transmitters/beacons.)


Yeah, but for us pilots, we only have to decode a handful of letters  
repeated over and over. Plus, the morse is depicted on the chart and  
the speed is slow (like 5-8 WPM).


My instructors were impressed when I would identify VORs without  
looking at the chart


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-02-07 Thread Bill Coleman


On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:44 PM, Sandy W5TVW wrote:

Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station  
just
answers "W1ABC W1ABC K".  Who is he calling?  I usually respond by  
sending: "QRZ?  QRZ? DE W5TVW K".

Often the other station will simply send
"W1ABC W1ABC K"  If the band is crowded, which it often is, this  
had NOT
told me he is calling me!  We have not yet established  
communication so

the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure.


Back in the day when most hams used crystal controlled transmitters,  
and would tune 10-25 kHz either side of their CQ looking for answers,  
the practice of answering a CQ with W5TVW W5TVW W5TVW DE AA4LR AA4LR  
AA4LR AR made sense.


However, these days, operating zero-beat on a single frequency, the  
long call is just a waste of time. You call CQ DE W5TVW K. I'll  
answer AA4LR on the same frequency. Where's the confusion?


In contest operation, we'll dispense with the DE and K altogether.  
Millions of contest CW contacts are made this way each year, without  
sending both calls.



Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ
DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times.  Then a 5 second
pause for an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again!


The old "Novice Accent" advice was to do 3x3x3 - CQ CQ CQ DE W1ABC  
W1ABC W1ABC repeated three times. Again, that was with a lot of guys  
still rock-bound. These days, a single 3x3 with a few seconds of  
listening seems more appropriate.



  One chap on 40
a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times.  I couldn't  
stand it any longer
and fired up the 1/2 Kw and called him.  He acted as if I was never  
there.

Either deaf or has his receiver somewhere besides his frequency.


I remember a moment from 30 years ago -- hearing a guy at 5 wpm send  
57 CQs in a row before I got tired and moved on. Never knew if he  
ever signed

Are ham license classes teaching proper procedures anymore?


What we need is something like the "Novice Accent" brochure, but  
updated for modern procedures.




Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASELMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Sandy W5TVW
I have taught many "CW procedures" classes in the past.  I was also
frequently "tapped" to explain tube amplifier classes, oscillator circuits, etc.
as most of the people wanted to know this in addition to solid state gear
theory.
I did this umtil there seemed to be no interest in doing this anymore.
This was the "era" when it seemed everyone was unloading vacuum tube gear,
even throwing it in the dumpster at hamfests!  The days when you could 
buy all the Johnson Viking Rangers you wanted  for $20-40 TOPS, some in
mint condition!  Wished I'd bought some of them then!  (If I did, I knew my
XYL would raise hell about storing all that junk!)

Most hams then were more interested in getting the code to 13 WPM and
then forgetting it and working SSB 'phone.  Anyone at the time that liked CW
was usually checking into an ARRL NTS net and learned traffic net procedures
and proper protocol.  "Contesting" was popular, but the contests were rather far
apart and few between, so most CW contesters would "ragchew" at times to keep
their code speed up.  No computers and 'code readers", and computers in those
days for most hams.

I find most CW operators are QRPers or are fooling with boatanchor/glowbug 
rigs nowadays.  There are a FEW  newbies that take to code like ducks to 
water.  I'm afraid the realm of the "telegrapher" is getting smaller and 
smaller.
It's ashame as Morse is a VERY unique communication system and an 'art'.
The Amateurs and airplane pilots seem the only ones who still use it.
(Yes, airplane pilots STILL have to use Morse to decode the aural
identification of DME/VOR/NDB transmitters/beacons.)

73,
Sandy W5TVW
- Original Message - 
From: "Tony Martin W4FOA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


| Sandy,
| I agree with much of what you have said but I would ask "whom shall we 
| blame"?
| Unfortunately, I think we, you and I, are to blame for the lack of skills 
| and know how
| of many of the newcomers.
| 
| I don't know how long you have been in ham radio, but it wasn't too many 
| years
| ago when most of us were "in" ham radio because of an "elmer".  Someone that
| introduced us to this wonderful hobby and nudged us along the way, 
| encouraged us
| when we wanted to give up, and then tutored us as we got on the air.  Even 
| corrected
| us when we were not operating according to the standards of the day.
| 
| Today it is too easy to buy a book off the shelf, spend a day studying it, 
| spend 20 minutes
| taking an exam and wait 24 hours to receive your own callsign.  The radio 
| clubs are
| ever so eager to have new members that many really don't spend the time to 
| insure that
| the new member will ever be more than a "dues paying member" and never 
| realize there
| is more to ham radio than 2 meters.
| 
| If there is a solution to the problem of poor operating habits by our 
| newcomers, it will
| be for each of us to take them by the hand and teach them the correct 
| procedures.  BUT,
| please don't think for one minute that ALL of the bad operators are 
| newcomers.not
| by any stretch of the imagination!
| 
| My two cents worth..
| 
| Tony, W4FOA
| 
| 
| ----- Original Message - 
| From: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
| Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:44 PM
| Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT
| 
| 
| > Operating "protocol" today is absolutely atrocious at times!
| > A lot of the newer hams know nothing about really proper procedure and
| > many are very short on manners!
| > Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station just
| > answers "W1ABC W1ABC K".  Who is he calling?  I usually respond by 
| > sending: "QRZ?  QRZ? DE W5TVW K".
| > Often the other station will simply send
| > "W1ABC W1ABC K"  If the band is crowded, which it often is, this had NOT
| > told me he is calling me!  We have not yet established communication so
| > the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure.
| >
| > Whether a station uses "OP", "NAME", "HANDLE" (or whatever) that is his
| > preference, whatever turns his crank.
| >
| > Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ
| > DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times.  Then a 5 second
| > pause for an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again!  One chap on 
| > 40
| > a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times.  I couldn't stand it 
| > any longer
| > and

Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Vic K2VCO

Sandy W5TVW wrote:


Operating "protocol" today is absolutely atrocious at times!
A lot of the newer hams know nothing about really proper procedure 


If they are actually *using CW* I'm happy!
--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Don Wilhelm
Ci,

For you and any others in your situation, may I suggest that you avail
yourself of the ARRL Operating Manual.  The ARRL Handbook used to briefly
cover operating standards, prosign usage, proper calling technique, etc. in
the Operating a Station chapter of the ARRL Handbook - it is present in my
1994 and earlier handbooks but was dropped sometime between 1994 and 1999 (I
surmise they are trying to sell more copies of th eOperating Manual by
dropping the info from the Handbook ).  Perhaps you can find an older
copy of the ARRL Handbook or the ARRL Operating Manual in a library or from
a ham friend.

IMHO, there is no good excuse for failing to know proper operating
technique - the information is certainly available and should be a part of
every ham's library - and that concept is one that should be presented in
any ham license class.

73,
Don W3FPR

> -Original Message-
>
> Are ham  license classes teaching proper procedures  anymore?
>
> Sandy, I have been a ham for one and one-half years. There were no ham
> classes when I got licensed. Since I only operate CW, I looked
> for an elmer and
> found none. I signed up for the FISTS code buddy program and
> received no-one.
> Perhaps I am the worst "lid" you have ever heard, but I am
> striving to  become
> as proficient as you apparently are. I find cw operators to be
> the  kindest
> and forgiving of the many groups I have encountered in my 62
> years of  life. I
> am still in the 15 to 20 word speed goup on a good day, but I
> absolutely  love
> this hobby. I assume I will improve with time--I am on the air
> everyday and
> also work on my speed with an MP3 player.
>
> My point is that there are many of us like me making it on our
> own. Perhaps
> you got your training in some organized manner that simply is not very
> available  any more. So please be tolerant of those of us who are
> striving to learn.
> Thank  you, and I hope to meet you on the air...72/73, Ci
>
>
> Ci Jones,  WU7R (k-2 #4615, K-1 #933, KX-1 #957)
> FISTS #10789
> NAQCC #306
> ARCI  #12163
> SKCC #22
>

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Earl W Cunningham
Of course it is!!

73, de Earl, K6SE
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Tony Martin W4FOA

Sandy,
I agree with much of what you have said but I would ask "whom shall we 
blame"?
Unfortunately, I think we, you and I, are to blame for the lack of skills 
and know how

of many of the newcomers.

I don't know how long you have been in ham radio, but it wasn't too many 
years

ago when most of us were "in" ham radio because of an "elmer".  Someone that
introduced us to this wonderful hobby and nudged us along the way, 
encouraged us
when we wanted to give up, and then tutored us as we got on the air.  Even 
corrected

us when we were not operating according to the standards of the day.

Today it is too easy to buy a book off the shelf, spend a day studying it, 
spend 20 minutes
taking an exam and wait 24 hours to receive your own callsign.  The radio 
clubs are
ever so eager to have new members that many really don't spend the time to 
insure that
the new member will ever be more than a "dues paying member" and never 
realize there

is more to ham radio than 2 meters.

If there is a solution to the problem of poor operating habits by our 
newcomers, it will
be for each of us to take them by the hand and teach them the correct 
procedures.  BUT,
please don't think for one minute that ALL of the bad operators are 
newcomers.not

by any stretch of the imagination!

My two cents worth..

Tony, W4FOA


- Original Message - 
From: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT



Operating "protocol" today is absolutely atrocious at times!
A lot of the newer hams know nothing about really proper procedure and
many are very short on manners!
Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station just
answers "W1ABC W1ABC K".  Who is he calling?  I usually respond by 
sending: "QRZ?  QRZ? DE W5TVW K".

Often the other station will simply send
"W1ABC W1ABC K"  If the band is crowded, which it often is, this had NOT
told me he is calling me!  We have not yet established communication so
the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure.

Whether a station uses "OP", "NAME", "HANDLE" (or whatever) that is his
preference, whatever turns his crank.

Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ
DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times.  Then a 5 second
pause for an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again!  One chap on 
40
a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times.  I couldn't stand it 
any longer

and fired up the 1/2 Kw and called him.  He acted as if I was never there.
Either deaf or has his receiver somewhere besides his frequency.

Are ham license classes teaching proper procedures anymore?  I KNOW the
FCC doesn't give a damn.  Perhaps a cell phone ringing, or someone passing
gas loudly, or talking loudly in an office or church or theatre isn't 
considered

RUDE anymore, so why try to have any manners in the ham bands?

Sorry for the diatribe, but seems like too many of the newbies are not
paying attention or don't care.  More attention needs to be payed to
the ARRL operating manual or have they rewritten it to reflect the
times?

This 2 cents worth on "Rotten Radio" from this "Old Man".

73 to all,
Sandy W5TVW
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


| In a message dated 1/13/06 3:35:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
|
| > The use of CL, KN, BK, or the use of both AR and K at the end of the 
same

| > transmission is nonsense.
|
|
| I disagree in part.
|
| CL means "closing station, will not listen for any calls" Equivalent to 
the

| military use of "AR". How the amateur and military uses of "AR" got so
| different is a mystery to me.
|
| KN has a definite use in amateur radio if someone is rare DX.
|
| BK is different from K in that it is used in rapid-fire exchanges rather 
than

| with full callsign exchanges.
|
|
| I do agree about combining "AR" and "K".
|
|
| > >But "BK" is used in rapid-fire exchanges
| > >*without* the formal callsign exchange:
| > >".FB MOJO OM BT IS UR RIG A K2 or K1? BK
| >
| > Once again...a simple K serves even better.  There is no usage rule 
that

| > states that K must only be used following a call sign.
|
| No, but it emphasizes the quick nature of the exchange.
|
| 
|
| Couple of other points:
|
| Someone mentioned brevity.
|
| In my Novice days it was common to hear things like:
|
| "R R R TNX FER CALL BT UR SIGS RST 599 599 BT QTH IS WAYNE, PA WAYNE, PA 
BT

| NAME IS JIM J

Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread BPCI
 
 
In a message dated 1/14/2006 8:13:59 AM Mountain Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Are ham  license classes teaching proper procedures  anymore? 

Sandy, I have been a ham for one and one-half years. There were no ham  
classes when I got licensed. Since I only operate CW, I looked for an elmer and 
 
found none. I signed up for the FISTS code buddy program and received no-one.  
Perhaps I am the worst "lid" you have ever heard, but I am striving to  become 
as proficient as you apparently are. I find cw operators to be the  kindest 
and forgiving of the many groups I have encountered in my 62 years of  life. I 
am still in the 15 to 20 word speed goup on a good day, but I absolutely  love 
this hobby. I assume I will improve with time--I am on the air everyday and  
also work on my speed with an MP3 player.
 
My point is that there are many of us like me making it on our own. Perhaps  
you got your training in some organized manner that simply is not very 
available  any more. So please be tolerant of those of us who are striving to 
learn. 
Thank  you, and I hope to meet you on the air...72/73, Ci

 
Ci Jones,  WU7R (k-2 #4615, K-1 #933, KX-1 #957)
FISTS #10789
NAQCC #306
ARCI  #12163
SKCC #22
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Cortland Richmond
Hi Joe.

Morse turned out in practice not as useful as the Tap code. 
See http://www.miafacts.org/pages.htm

Cortland
KA5S


> [Original Message]
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:14:53 -0500
From: "Joseph Trombino Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
Might I suggest that dragging a rock along the prison wall for a second or 
so can be used to make a DASH.as compared to the short tap of the rock 
against the wall for a DOT.

___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-14 Thread Sandy W5TVW
Operating "protocol" today is absolutely atrocious at times!
A lot of the newer hams know nothing about really proper procedure and
many are very short on manners!
Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station just
answers "W1ABC W1ABC K".  Who is he calling?  I usually respond by sending: 
"QRZ?  QRZ? DE W5TVW K".
Often the other station will simply send
"W1ABC W1ABC K"  If the band is crowded, which it often is, this had NOT
told me he is calling me!  We have not yet established communication so
the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure.

Whether a station uses "OP", "NAME", "HANDLE" (or whatever) that is his
preference, whatever turns his crank.

Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ
DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times.  Then a 5 second
pause for an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again!  One chap on 40
a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times.  I couldn't stand it any 
longer
and fired up the 1/2 Kw and called him.  He acted as if I was never there.
Either deaf or has his receiver somewhere besides his frequency.

Are ham license classes teaching proper procedures anymore?  I KNOW the
FCC doesn't give a damn.  Perhaps a cell phone ringing, or someone passing
gas loudly, or talking loudly in an office or church or theatre isn't considered
RUDE anymore, so why try to have any manners in the ham bands?

Sorry for the diatribe, but seems like too many of the newbies are not
paying attention or don't care.  More attention needs to be payed to
the ARRL operating manual or have they rewritten it to reflect the
times?

This 2 cents worth on "Rotten Radio" from this "Old Man".

73 to all,
Sandy W5TVW
----- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT


| In a message dated 1/13/06 3:35:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
|
| > The use of CL, KN, BK, or the use of both AR and K at the end of the same
| > transmission is nonsense.
|
|
| I disagree in part.
|
| CL means "closing station, will not listen for any calls" Equivalent to the
| military use of "AR". How the amateur and military uses of "AR" got so
| different is a mystery to me.
|
| KN has a definite use in amateur radio if someone is rare DX.
|
| BK is different from K in that it is used in rapid-fire exchanges rather than
| with full callsign exchanges.
|
|
| I do agree about combining "AR" and "K".
|
|
| > >But "BK" is used in rapid-fire exchanges
| > >*without* the formal callsign exchange:
| > >".FB MOJO OM BT IS UR RIG A K2 or K1? BK
| >
| > Once again...a simple K serves even better.  There is no usage rule that
| > states that K must only be used following a call sign.
|
| No, but it emphasizes the quick nature of the exchange.
|
| 
|
| Couple of other points:
|
| Someone mentioned brevity.
|
| In my Novice days it was common to hear things like:
|
| "R R R TNX FER CALL BT UR SIGS RST 599 599 BT QTH IS WAYNE, PA WAYNE, PA BT
| NAME IS JIM JIM"
|
| pounded out at 5-7 wpm.
|
| But the same thing can be sent as:
|
| "R R R TNX CL UR 599 599 IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA  OP JIM JIM"
|
| which still includes the repeats of the important stuff but is a bit
| shorter
|
|   ____
| On "run together" prosigns like AR and SK:
|
| I propose that since plaintext doesn't allow us to overline easily, we adopt
| the online convention of enclosing such signals in brackets. []
|
| So AR would mean didah   didahdit
|
| and  [AR] would mean didahdidahdit
|
| Agreed?
|
| --
|
| On standardization:
|
| It's interesting to see the variations in different military and commercial
| Morse operations vs. amateur, as well as ITU standards.
|
| But I think it's pretty clear that nobody else is going to set standards for
| Morse
| much any more. Indeed, at least here in the USA, the FCC has backed down from
| many old standards. For example, it used to be required by law that hams give
| their own call last - that's gone. So is logkeeping as a legal requirement,
| indicating most portable or mobile operation, indicating the station called,
| and much more.
|
| IOW, the standards for Morse in the future are going to be mostly what we
| hams say they are.
|
| 73 de Jim, N2EY
| ___
| 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
| Elec

Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-13 Thread David A. Belsley


On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Dan Barker wrote:
I agree "K" is more succinct, but dahdidididaddidah sounds great!  
Maybe I'll

switch to just K, and maybe I won't.


Well, hey, didahdidahdidahdit dahdidaddidah sounds great too!  Why  
don't you use that.  In fact, usually in my cw qso's I simply send a  
lot of neat sounding combinations of dit's and dah's.  The meaning is  
really irrelevant as long as it sounds great.


In all seriousness, however, has anyone ever heard someone try to  
break into a going qso by simply sending K?  Clearly BK has  meaning  
separate from K, but not when turning the exchange over to the other  
operator.  Then the added B is redundant.  I would suggest the  
following logic, however, behind those who like to use BK in some  
circumstances.  Many operators, for some reason, feel compelled to  
send full calls both at the beginning and end of their round (every  
round): you know, W1EUY de K8xxx.  Sometimes they even send it twice,  
even after the qso is underway: W1EUY W1EUY de K8xxx K8xxx.  I guess  
they think you may not be sure what your call is or that you may have  
forgotten that the qso was underway.  In any event, if these  
operators want to do a "quick break", they may feel naked without  
giving the calls, and so fear the simple K will not be understood.   
The BK in this case is more substantive and makes the intent clearer;  
but it is still unnecessary.


The BK can also be of use when you ask a question.  Sometimes an  
operator asks a question and continues the conversation, clearly  
expecting the answer to be given when qso is eventually passed over  
to the other operator.  Sometimes, however, one asks a question and  
wants an immediate answer.  The BK in this instance provides better  
preparation than a simple K for the receiving station to recognize  
the intent.


It is in this sense that code is a language and not simply an  
alphabet used to spell another language.  Indeed, there are a number  
of cw languages: German, Dutch, Italian, French, etc.  But, within  
each of these, there are aspects of the code that take on idiomatic  
meaning through usage that are thoroughly understood by those who  
speak the language, but have no counterparts in regular speech.   
These elements of the code play an informational role similar to  
those conveyed by inflections of the voice.  They grow up naturally  
through usage in a context and are readily conveyed and mimicked and  
repeated by those who hear.  Cw, then, is a language that grows on  
top of another language.



best wishes,

dave belsley, w1euy
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-13 Thread Dan Barker
I agree "K" is more succinct, but dahdidididaddidah sounds great! Maybe I'll
switch to just K, and maybe I won't.

So there.

Dan / WG4S / K2 #2456


> Once again...a simple K serves even better.  There is no usage rule that
> states that K must only be used following a call sign.


___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-13 Thread N2EY
In a message dated 1/13/06 3:35:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> The use of CL, KN, BK, or the use of both AR and K at the end of the same 
> transmission is nonsense.


I disagree in part.

CL means "closing station, will not listen for any calls" Equivalent to the 
military use of "AR". How the amateur and military uses of "AR" got so 
different is a mystery to me.

KN has a definite use in amateur radio if someone is rare DX. 

BK is different from K in that it is used in rapid-fire exchanges rather than 
with full callsign exchanges.


I do agree about combining "AR" and "K". 


> >But "BK" is used in rapid-fire exchanges
> >*without* the formal callsign exchange:
> >".FB MOJO OM BT IS UR RIG A K2 or K1? BK
> 
> Once again...a simple K serves even better.  There is no usage rule that 
> states that K must only be used following a call sign.

No, but it emphasizes the quick nature of the exchange.



Couple of other points:

Someone mentioned brevity.

In my Novice days it was common to hear things like:

"R R R TNX FER CALL BT UR SIGS RST 599 599 BT QTH IS WAYNE, PA WAYNE, PA BT 
NAME IS JIM JIM" 

pounded out at 5-7 wpm. 

But the same thing can be sent as:

"R R R TNX CL UR 599 599 IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA  OP JIM JIM" 

which still includes the repeats of the important stuff but is a bit 
shorter

  ____
On "run together" prosigns like AR and SK:

I propose that since plaintext doesn't allow us to overline easily, we adopt 
the online convention of enclosing such signals in brackets. []

So AR would mean didah   didahdit

and  [AR] would mean didahdidahdit

Agreed?

--

On standardization:

It's interesting to see the variations in different military and commercial 
Morse operations vs. amateur, as well as ITU standards.

But I think it's pretty clear that nobody else is going to set standards for 
Morse 
much any more. Indeed, at least here in the USA, the FCC has backed down from 
many old standards. For example, it used to be required by law that hams give 
their own call last - that's gone. So is logkeeping as a legal requirement, 
indicating most portable or mobile operation, indicating the station called, 
and much more. 

IOW, the standards for Morse in the future are going to be mostly what we 
hams say they are.

73 de Jim, N2EY 
___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-13 Thread Joseph Trombino Jr


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Elecraft Reflector" 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT



Sandy wrote:


Even prisoners used it in prison camps by tapping on walls or pipes.


I don't think International Morse serves very effectively when the 
characters must be simple taps.  How does the receiving operator tell if a 
tap is supposed to be a dash?  In my experience, I'd say it can't be done.


---snip--

Howdy Mike:

Might I suggest that dragging a rock along the prison wall for a second or 
so can be used to make a DASH.as compared to the short tap of the rock 
against the wall for a DOT.


Seems reasonable.think about it.

   73, Joe W2KJ
   I QRP, therefore, I am 



___
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] Is CW a Language? OT

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Morrow
Sandy wrote:

>Even prisoners used it in prison camps by tapping on walls or pipes.

I don't think International Morse serves very effectively when the characters 
must be simple taps.  How does the receiving operator tell if a tap is supposed 
to be a dash?  In my experience, I'd say it can't be done.

The tap code that was used by our POWs in N. Vietnam was not remotely related 
to any kind of Morse.  It began with 25 of the 26 letters (c was used in place 
of k) arranged in a five by five array.  It took a pair of up to five taps each 
to pick the intended letter from the array.  For example, 2 taps (down array) 
followed by 5 taps (across array) found a H at that location in the array.  
This system has the distinct advantage of almost instant usability by untrained 
people, plus there's no need to know how long a tap is held.  See history and 
detail at: http://www.airsoftgent.be/dbase/tapcode.htm .

Don wrote:

>The 'prosigns' listed in 1994 are: QRL?, CQ, AR, K, KN, BK, R, AS, SK,
>and CL ...

The source is wrong in considering any Q-signal as a prosign.

I greatly prefer the simple, logical usage of military Morse over the 
idiosyncratic flourishes of which so many hams seem proud.  That is what I have 
always used on the ham bands.  The only prosigns used to end a transmission of 
military Morse are:

K Over (used when a response is expected from the other station)
AR   Out   (used when no response is expected from the other stations)
These two are NEVER used together...it's always one OR the other.  What more 
does one need?  If it worked for military Morse, I doubt that ham hobbyist 
Morse requirements would demand something more elaborate.  

There is NO value in the ham hobbyist tendency to sprinkle other and often 
multiple pointless prosigns on the end of a transmission.  The use of CL, KN, 
BK, or the use of both AR and K at the end of the same transmission is nonsense.

Jim wrote:

>"ES PSE QSL KK5F DE N2EY K"
>meaning "go ahead any station"

In my experience, there is almost no value in indicating that you want only the 
called station to respond, by using the KN prosign.  In 38 years operating ham 
and MARS Morse (before MARS banned Morse ten years ago), I've always used K and 
I've never had chaos result there from.  Besides, KN sent properly is actually 
a left parenthesis.

>But "BK" is used in rapid-fire exchanges
>*without* the formal callsign exchange:
>".FB MOJO OM BT IS UR RIG A K2 or K1? BK

Once again...a simple K serves even better.  There is no usage rule that states 
that K must only be used following a call sign.

73 all!
Mike / KK5F

___
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