Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CW\s+speed\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CW\s+speed\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CW speed (score: 1): Author: 107770.3462@compuserve.com (James P. Cassidy); Date: Tue Nov 17 23:55:26 1998; Almost all of the suggstions have been very good as far as making QSOs witm faster sending stations. My suggestion is practice with you computer logging program before the contest. Almost all of them; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-11/msg00259.html (7,041 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: kw4t@erols.com (Dan Weisenburger); Date: Wed May 28 11:40:39 1997; Hi Group, I played with my sending speed and dropped as low as 16 wpm and up to around 24 wpm when calling CQ. I put spaces between the elements of my call. I took the spaces out. No matter what I di; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-05/msg00276.html (7,583 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: rocker@datasync.com (Ray Rocker); Date: Thu May 29 19:25:21 1997; The big problem for us low power ops is that other stations inside the skip zone usually don't hear us. On 20m especially, it's almost like clockwork: I find a run frequency, and a few minutes later; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-05/msg00322.html (8,078 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: JEH@on.mobile.telia.se (Jan-Erik Holm); Date: Fri May 30 12:50:02 1997; Doesnt matter even if you run high power and stacked antennas. There are always a certain number of fools that simply are ignorant and will do the best to run you off the frequency. In WPX CW KG1D w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-05/msg00324.html (8,465 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: rocker@datasync.com (Ray Rocker); Date: Thu May 29 19:25:21 1997; The big problem for us low power ops is that other stations inside the skip zone usually don't hear us. On 20m especially, it's almost like clockwork: I find a run frequency, and a few minutes later; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-05/msg00446.html (8,040 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: rocker@datasync.com (Ray Rocker); Date: Thu May 29 19:25:21 1997; The big problem for us low power ops is that other stations inside the skip zone usually don't hear us. On 20m especially, it's almost like clockwork: I find a run frequency, and a few minutes later; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-05/msg00527.html (8,044 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] CW Speed (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:18:36 -0800; 38 wpm is fine with signals are great and you're only working serious contesters. It's stupid when signals are poor, or when you've run out of serious contesters to work. I marvel at the stupidity of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-02/msg00157.html (9,877 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Martin Sellschopp <m.sellschopp@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:21:39 +0100; Hi all, what is the advantage of sending cw at speeds which are most likely beyond the capability of most cw operators ? Isn't a run station hoping for replies also from the occasional contester ? Or; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00002.html (6,807 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Dave Edmonds <dave@pkministrywebs.com>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 12:34:48 -0500; Hi Martin, I typically send faster than the normal speed because it's one of the best ways for me to have a decent hourly rate in the contests like CQWW. In CQWW the exchange is easy to copy, but cop; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00005.html (9,317 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:46:39 -0600; I've never been able to understand it, either, but many consistently high-scoring operators seem to do all their sending 40+ wpm. They must figure the extra speed is worth the inevitable NIL penalti; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00006.html (8,747 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: kq2m@kq2m.com; Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:43:23 -0600; Hi Martin, The simple answer to your question is "It depends". I will give the perspective of a contest opr. focused on making the best score possible. A top level op is evaluating everything, second; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00007.html (14,285 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:00:49 -0500; There were several ops in the WW that made in the neighborhood of 10,000 QSOs. All of them spent most (if not all) of their time well in excess of 30 wpm...you can see exactly how fast by reviewing R; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00008.html (9,001 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Robert Busch - DM4AO <sunnyrob@gmx.de>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 23:39:45 +0100; Hi Martin, Higher speed = higher rates = more QSOs = higher score Simple as that. Might also help to thin out a deep pile-up (and make more capable people happy in the same time). Speed usually decre; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00009.html (8,948 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 10:47:59 -0700; MartinI have often wondered the same thing. Here are my guesses as to what they are thinking1. They assume that most ops, especially the casual ones, are using some sort of call history program to au; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00010.html (9,255 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 11:23:42 -0800; All very well said, Bob. Another element of it is that contests like CQWW are so simple minded that for most DX QSOs, all we need to copy is the call -- Call History autofills the exchange. 73, Jim K; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00011.html (8,470 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: dave pkministrywebs.com <dave@pkministrywebs.com>; Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 23:54:10 +0000; One more thought regarding the possibility of more NIL penalties etc.. During the CQWW CW using N4IQ @W7WZ, I ran for 2.5 hours at 38-40 wpm non-stop and was able to maintain accuracy. The higher the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00014.html (10,836 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:28:43 -0500; The fast contest CW speed post by DK3UW is a good question. KQ2M had the best and most thorough response: http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2023-December/130429.html . If you're capabl; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00024.html (8,655 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>; Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:45:48 -0600; I wonder about others busting the running station's call. Even at modest speeds, I frequently get logged as K0MA, etc. I don't think the log checkers penalize you if it's something close, at least no; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00035.html (11,965 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:30:20 -0800; Last I looked, nearly all of the major contests penalize the sending station for mis-copying any part of the QSO. Only the receiving station gets dinged if he misses something. I've heard some of the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00037.html (9,392 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] cw speed (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 22:29:40 -0800; I meant to say nearly all of the major contests DO NOT penalize the sending station for the receiving station mis-copying any part of the QSO. Bad fingers. 73, Jim K9YC I believe that it is the respo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2023-12/msg00038.html (9,577 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]