[UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m

[Mike Farmer]

As Don said "an interesting thread" You all seem to have forgotten that it
used to be the practice in ALL CW QSOs to send at the speed the slower op
can recieve at. IMHO the current tread to blast away at anything over 25 wpm
is one cause for the lack of enthusiasum about CW - just where are our new
operators going to learn and increase their skills?  It is pointles sending
your call or CQ at 35 as the slower ops can not copy it and the whole world
seems to have forgotten QRS.

In a recent CQWW I heard one UK station sending QRZ QRS QRZ QRS but I guess
the auto-keyer could not understand!!!

Lets get back to basics send at a speed which is likely to be read by the
MAJORITY OF OPS

Mike
G3VAO


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger G3SXW" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>
To: "UK Contest reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m


> Peter is right: auto CQing, at least some of them. Bad operating.
Unethical,
> selfish and displays SO2R incompetence. I don't know which is worse: that
or
> the guy who comes back to 'his' frequency 60 seconds later, hits the CQ
> button without listening thereby stomping all over the new occupant. Also
> bad SO2R operating! These guys need to hone their skills and remember
> operating etiquette.
>
> On 160m I'd say keep varying the CW speed to suit the circumstance:
highest
> speed which seems to be working but slow down if not.
> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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
>
>
>