[CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING
K0LUZ at topsusa.com
Mon Dec 31 11:06:08 EST 2001
I will have to admit that as far as running, 24 wpm is about the lowest I
ever set it. It seems soooooooooooooo slow! Although I am happy to qrs if
someone request such. But your suggestion has merit and I have always
wondered what kind of rates I would have if I reduced the speed to 18 wpm or
somewhere in that area. My biggest fear is that there will be all kinds of
calls with all information sent to me three times (at 10 wpm --- I really
needed that). <my call> de <their call>-- report three times, <my call> de
<their call>. That takes some time considering that if the band is good, I
could have had three qso's during the time the above contact is complete.
But maybe there are enough people out there who would venture into a cw
contest if the speed was slow enough! Perhaps if there was a contest with a
maximum cw speed allowed of 20 wpm (or whatever), we could begin to
generate some new blood into the cw contesting ranks. Kinda like putting
restrictor plates on the NASCAR autos and then we can all bitch about it
when the contest is over (just like the drivers)!
This can't be a three hour contest either or the Yukon QSO Party (sorry
vy1ja), because many of these guys are only part timers right now because
they haven't seen the glowing light! So if we make it a very small window,
many won't participate at all. If it is a 24 or 48 hour test, you have a
chance of grabbing them for a couple of hours and get them thinking.
Hmmmmmm this might be the start of something BIG!
> My questions are: What do u consider appropriate rates for CW
> sending? Are
> there different standards for rag chewing and contesting? Are you sure
> that ur contesting rate is appropriate to get the most bang for
> ur run-time
> frequency? Do u listen to those who ask for u to QRS, or simply ignore
> them and continue at ur usual run rate if their request is not
> sent at very
> close to ur usual send rate, waiting for the faster QSO?
> Naturally I do not expect (or even want!) individual answers to these
> questions. The principle of the question is the important factor. As we
> all adjust our run freq rates, let's keep in mind that an extra
> sending of
> your call sign and keeping ur rate at a reasonable pace (16-20 wpm,
> according to my calculations) may very well improve our contest scores
> dramatically. These are just some thoughts and questions to think over.
> We all benefit when we see the contest community grow. That includes the
> CW, digital, and phone modes. This means we have a huge pool of new hams
> who suffered their way through the 5 WPM CW test. If they can't
> find a QSO
> in a CW contest, they are not going to develop the fever that the rest of
> us have for contesting.
> Well that is certainly enough from my point of view. I hope u
> will give it
> some thought.
> HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
> 73 de Frank W8HO ex WB8ZEV
> At 08:06 PM 12/29/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >Frankly - one other reason I've discovered over the years for
> dupes is that
> >folks just plain can't copy the code at semi QRQ rates. I have
> no idea what
> >they put
> >in their log but when I have nearly 400 dupes out of 4000 QSO's
> (5V7A - 20
> >something is definately wrong.
> >Tony N7BG
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "James Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>
> >To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>; "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr at arrl.net>
> >Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 12:56 PM
> >Subject: [CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING
> > > My response (long):
> > >Jim Neiger
> > N6TJ/ZD8Z
> > > THIS complaint about duplicate contacts is coming from an
> operator who has
> > > EARNED the reputation of signing his call TOO OFTEN. Perhaps
> > > earned, as sometimes I resort to signing after every QSO.
> I've tried to
> > > emulate my friend and hero KH6IJ is this regard:
> > >
> > > When done in a predictable sense, it tells the worked
> station, and pileup,
> > > three things:
> > >
> > > (1) I QSL your transmission of my
> > > report and your call sign,
> > >
> > > (2) It tells the pileup WHO I am,
> > >
> > > (3) It tells the pileup I'm NOW
> > > READY for the next callers.
> > >
> > > It's amazing how effective this can be, and with a short,
> fast call (like
> > > ZD8Z) I've been able to sustain CW rates of 230 - 250/hour.
> I wouldn't
> > > necessarily recommend it, for obvious reasons, if your call is, for
> > > instance, C56/DL0XXX.
> 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
More information about the CQ-Contest