[UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m

Wed Nov 25 01:38:50 PST 2009

I believe this wrong. If I am in any contest sending
at 32wpm and station calls me at any lower speed. I
assume that 1. He has my callsign already. 2. He can
copy sufficient information for a QSO.
I therefore carry on at 32wpm.
    If however I go S&P and come across a station
that is for example higher in the band and sending at
15wpm. It would make sense for me to send nearer to
that stations speed.
    This is my approach and one I shall continue to
use.
73 Clive GM3POI
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Farmer" <G3VAO at ARRL.net>
To: "UK-Contest" <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m


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