Re: Is CW a Language? OT
Locked
12
12
 
|
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: [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 |
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Morrow" <[hidden email]> To: "Elecraft Reflector" <[hidden email]> 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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
In a message dated 1/13/06 3:35:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[hidden email] 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: [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 |
|
|
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: <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> 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, | [hidden email] 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: [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 | | | | -- | No virus found in this incoming message. | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 | | _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by N2EY
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 <snip> > 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. </snip> _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
In a message dated 1/14/2006 8:13:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, [hidden email] 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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sandy W5TVW
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" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> 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: <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> > 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, > | [hidden email] 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: [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 > | > | > | > | -- > | No virus found in this incoming message. > | Checked by AVG Free Edition. > | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: > 1/12/2006 > | > | > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
Of course it is!!!!!!
73, de Earl, K6SE _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ci Jones
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 <G>). 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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sandy W5TVW
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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tony Martin W4FOA
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" <[hidden email]> To: "Sandy W5TVW" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> | To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> | 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: <[hidden email]> | > To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> | > 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, | > | [hidden email] 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: [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 | > | | > | | > | | > | -- | > | No virus found in this incoming message. | > | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | > | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: | > 1/12/2006 | > | | > | | > | > _______________________________________________ | > 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 | > | | | | | -- | No virus found in this incoming message. | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 | | _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sandy W5TVW
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-ASEL Mail: [hidden email] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sandy W5TVW
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-ASEL Mail: [hidden email] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bill Coleman-2
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 <G>. Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill Coleman Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:08 PM To: Sandy W5TVW Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email] 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-ASEL Mail: [hidden email] Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _______________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
>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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bill Coleman-2
|
| 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 LOOOOOONG 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: [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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
In a message dated 2/8/06 12:45:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [hidden email]
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: [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 |
|
|
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: [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 |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |