[CQ-Contest] The meaning of words

[Ron D. Rossi]

>>>v31jp at logical123.net said:
> 
> Bill,
> 
> It depends on the contest. ARRL uses the words "operating
> arrangements" which would allow the happen stance information
> as described. CQ, on the other hand, in their wording would
> penalize a station that had this happen to him. The difference
> being the arrangement of spotting information to be available
> would make you a single op assisted in both cases and the
> unarranged information would make you single op assisted in
> the CQ contests.
> ...

I am dwelling on this too much now I think. I have (out of frustration more 
than anything else) added something like "looking for Maine" to the end of a 
CQ hoping to coax a new one out of the woodwork. Thinking about it I guess I 
was also INVITING someone to come along and fill me in about where a Mainiac 
might be on the bands. Not my intent to be sure, but a possible (likely) 
outcome. I guess without saying something like "If you are in Maine please 
talk to me, but if you are not don't tell me where there is one" I should just 
call CQ.

Life was much simpler when I just didn't know any better. 

-- 
73 de KK1L...ron (kk1l at arrl.net) <><
QTH: Jericho, Vermont
My page: http://www.qsl.net/kk1l



--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Thu Nov 16 18:44:28 2000
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:44:28 -0800
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW pitch
References: <NDBBLALMGLFFIDHKKGKIGECHDAAA.dick.green at valley.net> <5.0.0.25.2.20001115205911.02b18610 at mail.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <071101c04ffd$410523f0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Volunteer examiners are faced with different conditions than contesters when
choosing CW pitch.  Most significantly, there is no need to adapt to heavy
interference.  In the absence of the need to distinguish between two
signals, other factors become more critical.  Many volunteer examiners will
flood the room with CW from a speaker rather than providing headsets.  Under
these conditions, room echos are often the most significant source of
interference.  Moving to a higher pitch reduces the intensity of the echos.

Although low pitch CW reception provides a clear signal to noise advantage
during contests, it comes at a price.  Because operators using transceivers
often have less control over their transmit offset (vs. their receiver BFO)
zero beating another station may be next to impossible.  Practicing low
pitch CW reception leads to an effective reduction in receiver bandwidth,
primarily on the low beat note side.  Many responding to CQs may be
overlooked.  I personally will increase the received note on the second day
of a contest like the Sweepstakes to avoid losing these potential contacts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye at pcnet.com>
To: "CONTEST" <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Cc: "Dan Violette - KI6X" <danki6x at pacbell.net>; "Dick Green"
<dick.green at valley.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW pitch


>
> Good comments from KI6X and WC1M about choosing your CW offset...
>
> I did an informal poll of about 30 serious contesters a few months ago on
> this topic.   Most of them favored a CW sidetone set in the 350-700 hz
> range.  Several were lower, and only a couple were higher.    The reason
> for the lower pitch is probably because:
>
> 1) it is easier to separate CW stations in the QRM at lower tones
> 2) good contesters can't hear higher tones so well anymore
> 3) we're all getting older
> 4) all of the above
>
> Since most radios seem to default to an 800 hz offset this means that it
> may be very useful to experiment with your favorite radio - and most of
> those manufactured in the last 10 years allow for easy adjustment.
>
> One question that has bugged me is that most groups that make CW training
> materials (including ARRL) record the tapes with tones higher than I'd
> choose.   The newly revised testing standards set by the Volunteer
> Examiners organization (all VECs) suggests 700-1000 hz.   The ARRL VEC
> suggests 720-750 hz.     That seems out of synch with how many (most?)
> experienced CW operators operate.  Is there something about being a
> newcomer that makes the higher tones easier to learn and copy?
>
> Anyhow, food for thought.  And I suppose there's some study somewhere that
> might help shed light on things.
>
>                          73 Tom
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
> e-mail: frenaye at pcnet.com    YCCC --> http://www.yccc.org/
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com