Posted by
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 on
Nov 28, 2004; 7:43pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/C-W-question-Cut-numbers-tp372125p372128.html
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.htmElecraft web page:
http://www.elecraft.com