Re: C W question/Cut numbers

Posted by Bob Nielsen on Nov 29, 2004; 9:53pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/C-W-question-Cut-numbers-tp372125p372132.html

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