general class code test

Paul Fischer pff at
Tue Apr 9 17:17:20 EDT 1996

Hi Everyone,
  I am about to take the general class code test and would appreciate 
any words of advise. Thanks alot.

73 kb9kgr

>From aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR)  Tue Apr  9 22:18:14 1996
From: aa4lr at (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:18:14 -0400
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <v01540b0fad90823bc33b@[]>

>Bill, aa4lr at wrote:
>> My only point is that providing a check value could be an aide in
>> confirming that the human operator did, indeed, copy the exchange
>> correctly.
>I think the contest log checkers should provide the final confirmation


>and the onus should be on the operator to "practice practice practice"
>until getting it right the first time and knowing it's right becomes
>second nature.

Wait a second here. How do you "know" it is right? The SprINT seems to
demonstrate that even well-known experienced mega-contestors still get it

>A checksum of the whole exchange is a kind of synthetic (and imperfect)
>synonym for the exchange and a checksum (or polynomial) for the callsign
>portion is just an extreme (silly!) synonym. They're redundant and the
>redundancy seems to me to be a problem apart from the practical and
>other issues that would prevent everybody from using this scheme.

Redundancy is the way to get the message through. If you didn't get it the
first time, how are you going to get the exchange? You have to repeat it.
Redundant. Frankly, I don't see where you are going with this.

>What could be less meaningful than a fixed "599" except the functional
>equivalent of "599 599"?

You missed the point entirely. Everybody sends 599, so the 599 itself is
meaningless. (Indeed, high wpm guys try their best to shorten the 599 as
much as possible) Since everyone is going to send 599, there's no need to
copy or pay attention to that part.

So, INSTEAD of the 599, we replace it with a two digit "check" value that
can be used to confirm the a) callsign or b) entire exchange.

Imperfect, yes. But such a check would be much shorter than trying to send
the entire exchange twice, but nearly as meaningful. The time-wasting 599
has been replaced with something useful.

> What could be more annoying than a check
>value that represents more overhead to explain, compute and exchange than
>the information it is checking, while adding nothing except a "crutch

Good point about being hard to explain. That would seem to be a point
against snagging those non-contester contacts.

As for the "crutch factor" -- I don't see this at all. I look at it as
replacing something valueless with something of value

>(But I agree that "59(9)" has value as a "sync pulse". I think without
>"please copy" in SS the scores would have been cut in half or the contest
>would have needed to be twice as long to handle the fills <g>)

Hmm. Lesson learned. Next SS, that crack you hear is me slapping myself the
next time I start to say "please copy"....

Bill Coleman, AA4LR      Mail: aa4lr at
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list