CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL "endorses" cut numbers

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL "endorses" cut numbers
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Reply-to: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@pclink.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:41:17 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Pete, N4ZR wrote, in part:

"John, K4BAI, made the best practical point - if you are expecting each 
number to be composed of 5 elements, then cut numbers using 4 elements 
create ambiguity that virtually demands a repeat."


>From my perspective:

I am fine with 5NN because it has become a standard. I am not as comfortable 
receiving cut numbers, especially when multiple "cuts" are sent, i.e. NEAT for 
9510. I strive for accuracy over rate, so an unexpected cut number typically 
generates a repeat request or me hanging around to listen to the next QSO to 
verify what I heard.

I find a full 5-element number contains sort of a "checksum". When I know 
numbers are coming and I hear two dits, I already know this is a 2, so I listen 
for the three dahs to verify my assumption. This is especially helpful during 
QRN conditions.

This technique goes out the window when cut numbers are thrown into the mix! 
When I hear a "di dah", I am already mentally setup for a "1" and will be 
listening for three more dahs. When I don't hear the three dahs, I have to 
switch my "decoder" into cut number mode. By that time, it's possible I have 
lost the second or third number, especially if there are more than one "cut" in 
the sequence.

Other than 5NN, I don't send cut numbers. When I receive them, there's an 
increased chance I will need a fill and will ask for it.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>