[RTTY] Dash vs space Etc.

[John GW4SKA]

The letters aren't wrongly sent by some stations and you didn't receive them 
fine. They have actually sent some data that you decode as letters, then a 
special character that shifts your decoder to numbers, then some more data 
which should appear as numbers. One burst of noise at the wrong time and you 
miss the shift to numbers and end up printing 599 as TOO.

We send the same data for letters or figures .. it's your decoder that needs 
to know which to print.

This all comes from the original system of coding used in mechanical 
teleprinters, which didn't have enough keys for all the diferrent characters 
in the alphabet. Have a look at the CCITT International Telegraph Alphabet 
No 2 and you will see how it works.

All the stuff with shift/control/tab/curse can be avoided. Look at the top 
row of your keyboard .. it's an easy conversion from letters to numbers. If 
you print TUO. look up and left from each of those letters and you have 579. 
You soon learn them. If you need to get a serial number or RST in the right 
place, just click in that box and type in the number manually. It's often 
easier than chasing garbage with the mouse then trying to convert it.

As for being a 'real' RTTY op ... you are probably way ahead of some on this 
list .. at least you ask for advice!

John GW4SKA



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <W2GR at aol.com>
To: <dezrat1242 at yahoo.com>; <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:53 PM
Subject: [RTTY] Dash vs space Etc.


>
>
> Because I am sort of a neophyte in regards to RTTY and I guess not a
> "real" RTTY operator according to Chen......why are the letters sent 
> anyway from
> some ops?....programs in use from days of old?....the only problems I had
> in  this contest and other contests on receive were the letters sent 
> instead
> of  numbers (either dashed or spaced) I received them fine...and the only
> time I had  to ask for a repeat was from the garbled mass of letters that 
> were
> sent for the  Serial No. number........and when asked for a repeat...the
> numbers were sent  instead of the letters...and it came through 
> fine...again
> either dashed or  spaced....so if numbers were sent first (either dashed 
> or
> spaced) I would have  saved more time with that rather than worrying about 
> if
> my contact was using a  --wait for it---a dash or a space in the
> exchange....
>
> I tried the shift/click route but the numbers ended up in the 599 line of
> Writelog. So I guess if I want to decode the exchange with SH/cl I have to
> tab over to the number line and do it?...and hope I click on the right 
> mass
> of  letters .....but seems kinda slow when I can just click on the ser. no
> and it  goes where I need it....or maybe I dont know what I am doing as a
> neophyte?....
>
> Please don't spank me for asking stupid questions but there are no  RTTY
> elmers around here that I know of and I am picking this stuff  up on my 
> own
> and finding I like RTTY a lot ....and having a lot of fun  with it...
>
> Maybe someday I will be a "real" RTTY operator...whatever that is.
>
> Mike W2GR
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 2/10/2013 7:19:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> dezrat1242 at yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> ORIGINAL  MESSAGE:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:45:55 -0800, W7AY  wrote:
>
>>
>>So, if you see "599 QWE 123" (and assuming one is  ignorant of the QWERTY
> mapping), that will still trigger a request for a  repeat.
>
> REPLY:
> Here's where we part company. If I see 599 QWE 123  I will not ask for a
> repeat. I will click on the 123 just as if the sender  had sent only that.
>
> Is it perfect? No. Is it close enough? Yes.
>
> Bill, W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY  mailing  list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6090 - Release Date: 02/08/13
>