C W question/Cut numbers

[Bill_Harris]

The practice of cut numbers dates back to WW2, maybe further.    After that,  it was a  common practice on commercial circuits.  But for some reason,  I don't believe it was not picked up by the amateur community until much later, say the 80's or  90"s?   The dah component was elongated,  such as  Daaah Dit =9; Daaah=0 or  Dit Daaah for a 5, which emphasized it as a number when sending mixed alpha numeric code groups, such as V5FN9,  and sometimes with numeric groups, where as a normal A (5) or N (9) would suffice. It may have been the operators call which to use.  When using the Bug or a Keyer in Simi-Auto,  I occasionally slip up and send a long N for a 9 in the signal report.  Guess that dates me.

Carry-on
KXBill


> On Nov 28, 2004, at 7:08 AM, Dan Barker wrote:
>
> > Does A4 mean 14 in Spanish? I hear Zones of A4 from EA7 stations. My
> > map
> > says 14 but my Español es muy stinko.
>

>
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
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

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

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: [hidden email]
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

[Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU]

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: [hidden email]
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

[Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone]]

As I understand it, cut numbers are only used where there's no
ambiguity.  There is certainly ambiguity possible in callsigns, and I
don't think anyone has advocated using cut numbers there.
And suggesting that is obfuscating the issue.

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.
Complaining about it is like complaining about words not being spelled
out fully and properly when having a ragchew or even spelling and
grammar flames on net postings.

73, doug

   Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:29:58 -0800
   From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[hidden email]>

   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: [hidden email]
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

[Doug Forman]

I use inexpensive (now discontinued) Radio Shack bench volt and
ammeters when I am combining rechargeable batteries and a small solar
panel for QRP portable use.

(btw, Volkswagon places small 12v solar panels in the windshield of
some of their cars when shipped from overseas to keep the batteries
trickle charged...  these are ruggedly built, are labeled for
3.2w/18.8v/170ma, and have a cigarette-lighter plug attached...  bought
mine for around $9 on eBay).

In a "senior moment" (cough) I recently mistakingly hooked 12v from a
small 0.8ah gelcell battery (that I connect to my KX1) directly across
the + and - terminals of my 0-1000mA meter.  After the smoke cleared,
and I disassembled the case, I noticed that I had melted a wire
connecting the meter to a binding post.

The ammeter is a simple meter with three binding posts...  0-500,
0-1000 and common.  It sold for around $13 at Radio Shack (part number
22-401) but was discontinued over a year ago (I've tried to just buy
another one with no luck).  Inside the small plastic case is the meter
and wires, no other parts.

Internally, the meter has no part markings other than the word "CHINA".
  The black (hookup) wire from the meter terminal was soldered to a bare
wire covered with loose fabric insulation, which was then soldered to
the common (black) binding post (this was the wire that melted), and
the red (hookup) wire connects to a bare wire which connects the (red)
0-500 and (red) 0-1000 binding posts and is covered with loose fabric
insulation close to the 0-500 binding post (the red side is still there
and did not melt).

Any thoughts, suggestions and wisdom from the "wizards of the list"
would be most appreciated - as this question may be a little off-topic,
perhaps replies should be sent to me off-list (or not?) your choice...

72,

Doug  N7BNT

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
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

[Doug Forman]

Thanks to Don and Ron for their detailed help, I think I'm on the right
path to fixing this now.

-doug

On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Doug Forman wrote:

> I use inexpensive (now discontinued) Radio Shack bench volt and
> ammeters when I am combining rechargeable batteries and a small solar
> panel for QRP portable use.
>
> (btw, Volkswagon places small 12v solar panels in the windshield of
> some of their cars when shipped from overseas to keep the batteries
> trickle charged...  these are ruggedly built, are labeled for
> 3.2w/18.8v/170ma, and have a cigarette-lighter plug attached...  
> bought mine for around $9 on eBay).
>
> In a "senior moment" (cough) I recently mistakingly hooked 12v from a
> small 0.8ah gelcell battery (that I connect to my KX1) directly across
> the + and - terminals of my 0-1000mA meter.  After the smoke cleared,
> and I disassembled the case, I noticed that I had melted a wire
> connecting the meter to a binding post.
>
> The ammeter is a simple meter with three binding posts...  0-500,
> 0-1000 and common.  It sold for around $13 at Radio Shack (part number
> 22-401) but was discontinued over a year ago (I've tried to just buy
> another one with no luck).  Inside the small plastic case is the meter
> and wires, no other parts.
>
> Internally, the meter has no part markings other than the word
> "CHINA".  The black (hookup) wire from the meter terminal was soldered
> to a bare wire covered with loose fabric insulation, which was then
> soldered to the common (black) binding post (this was the wire that
> melted), and the red (hookup) wire connects to a bare wire which
> connects the (red) 0-500 and (red) 0-1000 binding posts and is covered
> with loose fabric insulation close to the 0-500 binding post (the red
> side is still there and did not melt).
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions and wisdom from the "wizards of the list"
> would be most appreciated - as this question may be a little
> off-topic, perhaps replies should be sent to me off-list (or not?)
> your choice...
>
> 72,
>
> Doug  N7BNT
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> 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: [hidden email]
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

[David Toepfer]

--- Doug Faunt, N6TQS <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
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

[Bob Nielsen]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:29:57PM -0800, David Toepfer wrote:

> --- Doug Faunt, N6TQS <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
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

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

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" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
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: [hidden email]
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

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

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" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
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: [hidden email]
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