[UK-CONTEST] CW sending speed on 160m

[Don Field]

In a DXpedition situation, I would say that slow CW sent through QRN is
almost impossible to copy. Sending the callsign quickly several times is
better as there is then a chance that one of them will be copied between
static crashes. But in the absence of QRN, where signals are simply weak,
then slower is generally better Horses for courses..

Don G3XTT

2009/11/25 <dave at g4buo.com>

> What is wrong (in my view) is to have a hard-and-fast rule. It is a lazy
> contester who sits back and just pushes the function keys without engaging
> the brain.
>
> Often it is appropriate to slow down. If the rate is slow and you need
> every contact, then you should already have slowed your CQ speed and
> indeed you may have varied your CQ to give the callsign more often. If
> someone replies who sounds hesitant, or has a newer call, or for some
> other reason makes you think he will struggle at your sending speed, then
> slow down. I make a lot of my Qs using the keyer rather than the logging
> program, and its very easy to turn the speed pot to a matching speed, then
> turn it up again at the end of the QSO.
>
> Equally, if the pileup is going well (a rare enough thing for G - maybe
> more common for GM) then you will be sending faster and will tend to take
> the chance that the caller can copy. But it is still your responsibility
> to make sure it is a good QSO, or you may both lose points. This sort of
> topic comes up from time to time on the cq-contest reflector and the point
> is often made that it takes less time to send the exchange once at 20wpm,
> compared with twice at 35wpm especially when you consider the extra time
> needed to request the repeat.
>
> Dave G4BUO
>
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>