Pete Smith wrote:
...<snip>
> Here's another way of looking at it -- I find that I have no trouble with a
> single cut number (or a repeated number, like NN in 5NN) when it is clearly
> in a numerical context. But the context is the key, and when there are too
> many cut numbers, it might as well be Cyrillic CW...
de k3ft
Pete makes a very cogent point..
When I worked commercial marine (ship and shoreside) MF/HF CW we used cut
numbers quite
freqently in messages dealing with (mostly) numerical data such as weather
bulletins. As
Pete states, the context is the key. In those messages you KNEW that numbers
where
coming PLUS the format was fixed. Once memorized.. no problem. Within a fixed
format of
known composition, cut numbers are great and save time. In a 'mixed', somewhat
random
format (where the total sequence is determined BUT individual components are
random and
mixed) they are a royal pain, a mental strain (did I get a '1' or was that
really a 'A'
and then what do I log??) and waste more time than they save due to the need
for fills,
etc. By 'mixed' random format I mean the components are unknown. You know you
(might)
get a call and then the exchange, but when the sending op leaves out his call
(figuring
you got it) then your mind has to shift gears and process a new sequence. The
momentary
dropout causes you to miss characters at the higher speeds. It's even
compounded when
the sending op reverses or mixes the format on you! (How many of you muttered
curses at
the radio during the contest while trying to figure out what the guy just sent
so you
can log it?)
The sending at higher speeds causes needless repeats. Yes, 20 WPM is a slower
speed than
35 WPM, it's the effective information transfer rate that's important. I'd
rather get it
ONCE at 20-25 WPM and move on than to fight the QRM and waste time asking for
fill after
fill. This was borne out many times on the marine CW world. We op'd 8 hours a
day, 5-7
days a week, nothing but CW. Same for the Amateur side. (not 8 hours a day,
unfortunatly, but a lot of CW)
One thing to consider.. We may not like it, but it's here and we have
to live
with it. I don't have a solution for changing it, unless we continue to
emphasize the
poor choice of cut numbers and work to teach the more effective use of full
numbers and such when they are appropriate.
just my 6.25 cents worth.
73
Chuck K3FT
K3FT@erols.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|