You have great points. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm probably branded as
a "stick in the mud," but:
I generally ask "NR?" repetitively if a fellow sends cut numbers for his
number. But, last weekend, after about 5 repeats of the cut number from
this one lid (Yes, I said "LID" intentionally) who apparently didn't
know how to send Morse code numbers, I figured I "got" the number ok,
put it into my N1MM logger, and it filled in the space with the actual
numbers. That solves the problem of whether to report "what was sent"
or what the LID meant.
Also, for whatever reason, quite a few folks got the call I was using
(WQ8RP) wrong - typically, or not always, either KQ2RP (was he on this
contest?) or W8RP. In such cases I'd just send my call twice, give no
other info, and typically he'd repeat my call correctly along with his
I probably don't have a golden log, but after getting RBN reports of 6%
error or more with WQ8RP in the past, I figure valor is the better part
of discretion, and if folks consider me a LID because of my insistence
that they send my call correctly back to me, then I plead guilty.
Typical error rate is between 1 and 3% for other contests with my "real"
call, so the WQ8 is probably the thing which confuses ops.
73 de n8xx Hg
Operated WQ8RP during CQ WPX 2012
On 5/31/2012 10:18 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:23:15 -0400
> From: Pete Smith N4ZR<email@example.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] To cut or not to cut?
> To: CQ Contest<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> There's nothing like a CW serial number contest to get you re-thinking
> about the use of cut numbers.
> For situations where first-time intelligibility is important, I think use of
> cut numbers probably costs more time than it saves. Here's why:
> The basic Morse Code 0-9 character set has two important characteristics -
> each number is five code elements long, and each one gives you two chances to
> copy correctly or confirm that you have done so. If you hear the first dit of
> 1, or the last 4 dahs, then you know what the number is. 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. Even if you
> only get the two dits of 8, depending on when you hear them, you can have
> pretty good confidence that it was, in fact, 8, and not seven with one
> unheard dit.
> How much time is saved by sending A instead of 1? How much time is lost by
> responding to "AGN" or "NR?"
> Opinions? I bet there are a few out there.
CQ-Contest mailing list