[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] To cut or not to cut?

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] To cut or not to cut?
From: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:59:38 +0200
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
N4ZR wrote: This is because, with the regularity of computer-sent CW and the

presence of "5NN" as a signal to expect the number to begin at a certain 
time, you can often infer from the length of the "lost" portion of a 
number what it must have been.

Pete, how I wish you were right!  While my robot can check callsigns against
SCP, reports are just a lotery.  QRQ ENN, long pauses after 599, numerous
hand sent numbers with errors.  Cream on the cake comes from TU or BK at the
end while robot has already initiated QSO confirmation.  "E" as a cut number
for 5 would be the worst offence as QRN generates a lot of E's.

It is so much easier to work with Morse Runner at 50 wpm then with hams at
30 wpm :-(


CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CQ-Contest] To cut or not to cut?, Marijan Miletic, S56A <=