[CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING

[Frank W8HO]

Scott, u make a very eloquent presentation of my point, THANKS!

As far as the hand key goes at 25 wpm on a bencher (iambic dual paddle I 
assume) I think u are doing a great job if u can send clean code without an 
electronic keyer, and minimal swing or rhythm variance.  25 wpm is an 
excellent base to build to faster rates if u like.  Do u enjoy the purity 
of sending without an electronic keyer, or is it simply a matter of not 
having an electronic available?

Some of my friends pride themselves on never using an electronic keyer, 
heck some only use a straight key!  (I'll tell u they all have a fist u can 
identify, no one I've heard sends above 25 wpm on a single paddle or 
straight key without a noticeable swing, that I have ever heard !)  As for 
me, I use an electronic keyer in contests to be sure I send as clean of a 
signal as possible.  Which I believe increases rate efficiency.   Therefor 
maximizing my final score.

I certainly favor maximizing productivity and enjoyment of each QSO.  As 
one OM posted, I can't afford a chain of 10 wpm cw school exchanges, where 
each party exchanges callsigns 3 times etc., there is a need for efficiency 
as well as encouraging newbies to participate in contesting.  My goal is 
that every person I have a QSO with in a contest goes away with a smile on 
their face---knowing who they contacted without a doubt, and feeling that 
it was a clean exchange, done as efficiently as possible.  I don't know if 
u know what I mean, but if u have a contact like that u will.  It is 
becomes very clear when u have had a couple of contacts where u have had to 
listen to poorly sent code, at a variable rate.  You end up either cutting 
off the caller, or getting caught in an endless loop of please repeat 
ur....?......?......? etc. Not a pleasant prospect in either case.


Well, enough of my opinions.....let's hear from some others about their 
contesting habits, or protocols.  I'm sure there are a lot of wonderful 
ideas about how to improve ur scores and increase the pool of new 
contesters.  Let's hear from you!!

73 de Frank W8HO


At 05:58 PM 12/31/2001 -0800, Scott wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>
>Here's something else that I find interesting -
>
>I really enjoy SSB contesting, but have been apprehensive about getting
>on and operating CW contests.
>
>Recently Tom N5TW encouraged me to get on and at least give some of the
>locals some points.  I swallowed my fears and fired up the rig, and had
>a great time during ARRL 160m!!  23-25 wpm is about all I can muster
>since I don't have a keyer, I send manually using the Bencher paddle.
>Above 25wpm I start messing up my sending (lotsa extra Dits!!) so I
>keep it slower.
>
>Anyway, what I find interesting is the folks who run at 35-45wpm.  If I
>want to S&P him, I must listen to him several passes until I am pretty
>sure I have his call correct.  If he was running at 25-30wpm, I would
>more likely get his call the first time, and be able to work him more
>quickly.  This is to my benefit, but I think it is to his as well.
>Sometimes I think there are several of us sitting in the weeds
>listening to 40wpm attempting to decode what he is sending.  If he sent
>more slowly, he might increase his aggregate rate.
>
>Also, I'm all for a slow speed CW contest to help new folks get on and
>compete.  I think it's VITAL to encourage more folks to get on and
>operate.
>
>I know for a long time I would not operate CW contests because I felt
>20wpm would be frowned upon, and I would be ignored by the other ops
>running 35wpm.
>
>What I've found however, is I have been pleasantly amazed at how polite
>and friendly most ops are when I operate at 25wpm.  I get more TU's and
>73's than I do during SSB contests.  What a pleasant surprise!
>
>Well, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!
>
>73's es Tnx fer QRS!
>
>Scott - KI5DR
>
>--- Frank W8HO <W8HO at qsl.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello to all,
> >
> > Just a brief couple of comments about different habits developing in
> > contesting, and in CW contesting particularly.  Though I do not have
> > the
> > pleasure of calling KH6IJ a friend, I have certainly adopted this
> > operating
> > practice.  I believe, for the same reasons as Jim N8TJ has stated
> > that ur
> > call is stated at least twice in the QSO is essential if u want to
> > avoid
> > dupes and improve ur contest scores by decreasing penalties.(I make
> > sure
> > that the caller states my call correctly, or I state "this is W8HO to
> >
> > clarify the contact..." then I state my call to indicate I am ready
> > for the
> > next call.)
> >
> > While this post was triggered to encourage more frequent call sending
> >
> > during ur contest exchange, it was also to pose a few questions about
> > "QRQ"
> > sending.   Tony brought up the term QRQ.  A term we don't often
> > discuss,
> > but quite often have problems establishing.
> >
> > 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
> > >some
> > >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
> > >meters)
> > >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
> > >
> > >
> > >SNIP===SNIP===SNIP====SNIP
> > > > 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
> > rightfully
> > > > 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.
> > >SNIP===SNIP===SNIP===SNIP


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