[UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m

[Peter Hobbs]

Chris
A lot of the time I'd agree, but you do need to  reduce speed on 
marginal signals, or those with aurora on them, of which there are often 
more on 160, so I guess it depends on the time of day and what you may 
be expecting.  ZL6QH would have been louder than 99.5% of those calling, 
so I guess you could get away with it.   I'd never have copied some of 
the JAs during the 2nd 1.8 just gone at 35wpm though! 

Most of the guys who you find sending close spaced CQs are just keeping 
the run channel clear while they concentrate on a mult (SO2R).  Monitor 
the time between CQs and you find they've left it on auto.  A side 
effect of "progress" I guess.
73, Peter G3LET

Chris Tran GM3WOJ wrote:

>Hello UK-contesters
>
>I was going to post this to the cq-contest reflector but have had some bad 
>responses there in the past e.g. when I tried to complain about Pete N4ZR's 
>constant 'adverts' for Skimmer, so thought I would post here first.
>
>In the good old days, it was accepted practice to send CW more slowly on 
>160m - I assume the reasoning being that static crashes, etc could easily 
>blank out dots or dashes and lead to inaccurate copying. It seems to me that 
>this may be flawed logic - in other words a call sent at 32-24 wpm might fit 
>the whole callsign between static crashes and actually lead to more reliable 
>copy than a callsign sent more slowly. I first experienced this at ZL6QH 
>when Wil ZL2BSJ (now PE7T) was sending on 160m at about 35wpm and everyone 
>seemed to be copying everything easily. I'm not an expert on 160m so would 
>be interested to hear other opinions. Obviously you would think about 
>slowing down if the other station sends more slowly than you but I've found 
>that a constant sending speed usually works OK.
>
>Another problem in CQ WW CW, for example, is stations on 160m and 80m 
>leaving far too little time between CQs - again I've experienced this from 
>ZL6QH - you call them (even at 35wpm) and by the time you go back to receive 
>they are CQing again - almost as if they are not listening for anything less 
>than S9 signals. I know the QRM may be S9 at their end, but they should at 
>least try listening for weaker stations.
>
>73
>Chris    GM3WOJ / ZL1CT
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Peter Hobbs
Business Area Manager, Communications
Drumgrange Ltd.
 
Tel: +44 (1932) 581113
Fax: +44 (1932) 569646
email: phobbs at drumgrange.co.uk <mailto:phobbs at drumgrange.co.uk>
www.drumgrange.com <http://www.drumgrange.com>
 
HQ Office:
The Forum
Hanworth Lane
Surrey  KT16 9JX
United Kingdom
 
Home Office:
Tel: +44 (1444) 400750
email: peter at tilgate.co.uk <mailto:peter at tilgate.co.uk>
 
This message has been sent from my Home Office.  It has been scanned 
using the latest available Virus Database.  However, as new viruses may 
appear at any time, Drumgrange Ltd. does not accept responsibility for 
any that may remain.