Ria,
Did you get to experience dupe sheets? That was a totally different world,
but it was fun to try and play dupe sheet blackout-see how many of the
squares you can fill. I don't miss the paper logs at all! Been using NA
since 1999, I probably need to get with it and get N1MM going sooner or
later. I do still use paper logs for non-contest QSOs, though
73 John AF5CC
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I watched some old videos of contesting and a lot of it was slower
> back then too. Lots of slow phone, slow CW.
>
> Today we have computers which speed things up. That would explain it.
> Back then, you used what, a bug? And you had dupe sheets rather than
> N1MM+ or Win-Test.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Joe <nss@mwt.net> wrote:
> > This IS something very interesting actually,
> > If you look at my rate graph, That Bump you see at 20:00Z?
> > That was a simple change of going from the typical ~30/35 WPM,
> >
> > to only ~16/18 WPM.
> >
> > It felt terrible at first, Kind of like when you get off the expressway
> > after driving 75 for 8 hours to go to a regular road at 60 feels like you
> > are crawling. But the QSO rate JUMPED a LOT!
> >
> > Probably all those that can not copy the 30+ wpm. hmmmmm?
> >
> > Joe W9ET/WB9SBD
> > Sig
> > The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> > Idle Tyme
> > Idle-Tyme.com
> > http://www.idle-tyme.com
> >
> > On 11/9/2017 10:19 AM, Steve London wrote:
> >>
> >> I have listened to recordings of SS from the 60's and 70's. What strikes
> >> me is how much slower CW speeds were then. You needed to troll in all of
> >> those newly-hatched General's, who could copy only slightly more than 13
> >> WPM. Obviously, this slowed the rate on Saturday, leaving many more
> QSO's to
> >> be made on Sunday. If you tried running at 35 WPM, you would quickly
> run out
> >> of QSO's.
> >>
> >> Fast forward to today. With very few slow speed contesters out there, we
> >> are working each other at 30-40 WPM, with high rates. No one left to
> work on
> >> Sunday.
> >>
> >> As a datapoint, the 1968 winner of SS CW was KV4FZ, with 1000 QSO's. The
> >> QST writeup has some interesting photos - WA5LES (now K5RC), K5YAA
> (still
> >> K5YAA !), WA5RTG (now K5GO), WA2CLQ (now K1ZM).
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Steve, N2IC
> >>
> >> On 11/09/2017 08:18 AM, Bill via CQ-Contest wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It has now been 10 years since the US went code-free and ham radio
> >>> license
> >>> numbers are at ALL TIME highs - 750K total, half are general and extra
> >>> that
> >>> have HF privileges. 30K new techs a year, 10K upgrades a year from tech
> >>> to
> >>> general/extra. The problem for CW contesting is the number of hams that
> >>> can
> >>> copy code at 20+ WPM is decreasing and will continue to do so. New hams
> >>> are
> >>> on SSB/FM/digital. Look at the FT8 band segments on a bandscope. Look
> at
> >>> the
> >>> QSO totals in the RTTY contests. Read QST. And MOST importantly look at
> >>> the
> >>> checks in the last SS.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the number of submitted logs for a contest doesn't indicate
> >>> how
> >>> the contest is doing, because it is now so easy to submit a log via web
> >>> page
> >>> copy and paste. A good indication is for all the ops that put in 22+
> >>> hours
> >>> last weekend to ask themselves if they HAD fun and if they look forward
> >>> to
> >>> putting in 22+ hours next year? Did they feel like they couldn't wait
> for
> >>> it
> >>> to end? Were they squirming in their chair the last few hours?
> >>>
> >>> The only significant major contest scoring change I can think of in the
> >>> last
> >>> 45 years is WPX getting rid of zero point Q's. That's when I started
> >>> entering
> >>> the WPX. There needs to be some changes in the SS for those of us that
> >>> still
> >>> operate CW contests. Only 54 stations reported on 3830 operating 24
> >>> hours. In
> >>> 2010 there were 125 stations. I don't see anything positive in that
> >>> trend.
> >>>
> >>> 73, Bill KO7SS (47 years operating CWSS)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|