[UK-CONTEST] Re 1 CW Sending speed
Christopher Soames
semaos at semaos.plus.com
Tue Nov 24 23:36:23 PST 2009
Re 1 CW Sending speed.
I read the threads with some trepidation. Since you have all now managed
to convince me not to bother with 160 Mtrs,
Speed at 35 wpm will put a very high percentage of UK/WW/or new
operators off to start with especially me.
I thought the idea of CW operating was to operate at the speed of the
slowest station, I notice operator speed is not even considered in the
thread?? It is also quite prevalent in the 80m CC's where a station
calls CQ at 30-40+ and receives a reply at 20 ish, the calling station
then continues to respond at his/her original speed. The clue as to the
speed of the receiving operator is in reply, surely therefore this
should dictate the QSO speed??
Keep it to mid 20's and more of us can join in or at least slow down to
our speed when we reply, Please.
It does not matter one bit to me what the atmosphere and beyond is up to
if I cannot read your CW because it is 10-20wpm too fast for me.
Please be prepared to slow down and repeat if necessary, and believe me
at 35 wpm it will be necessary.
Chris G0TZZ
uk-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> Send UK-Contest mailing list submissions to
> uk-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> uk-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> uk-contest-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of UK-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. CW sending speed on 160m (Chris Tran GM3WOJ)
> 2. Re: CW sending speed on 160m (Peter Hobbs)
> 3. Re: CW sending speed on 160m (Don Beattie)
> 4. Re: CW sending speed on 160m (Roger G3SXW)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:39:22 -0000
> From: "Chris Tran GM3WOJ" <zl1ct1 at gm7v.com>
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001501ca6d24$af4f23d0$4001a8c0 at sempron>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:07:50 +0000
> From: Peter Hobbs <peter at tilgate.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m
> To: UK Contest reflector <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <4B0C12E6.8070809 at tilgate.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Regards from
Chris Soames
G0TZZ
email :-
semaos at semaos.plus.com
www.norfolkamateurradio.org
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list