[UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m

[Don Beattie]

Interesting thread !

I agree with Peter that some of the SO2R brigade might be keeping their 
channel open by frequent CQing.

But the more interesting thing is "what is the optimum speed for DX on 160 
?"  I agree with Chris that the "send it slow" policy may well be flawed. 
How many times have you waited for the missing digit in a call only to find 
it missing in QRN or (more often) slow QSB ? I think around a 24 wpm rate is 
probably optimal - not so fast that flutter/auroral echo takes it out, but 
fast enough to be able to afford call x 2 or even x 3 and have a good chance 
of copying it.

Of course in the end, the answer will be "whatever works best" but I must 
admit to frustration in recent contests when weak signals thought that 
sending slower improved matters - it didn't - it just prolonged the time 
needed to complete the QSO.

I wonder whether there is a learned treatise on this ? Someone may have done 
some modelling. I could not find anything via Google.

73

Don, G3BJ

(now with tower back up after the disaster !)







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Hobbs" <peter at tilgate.co.uk>
To: "UK Contest reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest