[UK-CONTEST] ARRL CW
Clive GM3POI
gm3poi2 at btinternet.com
Thu Feb 25 02:15:20 PST 2010
Absolutely right Roger about slowing down. But as has
been hinted CQWW is an almost standalone case of
virtually no exchange copying required by the
operator with a few zone exceptions. Keep riding
those speed controls.! 73 Clive GM3POI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger G3SXW" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] ARRL CW
> I've been following this thread with interest. Two
> totally different
> perspectives: the competitor who wants to win and
> the more casual operator
> in it for fun. Both are right.
>
> I would just mention that the winner of CQWW CW
> 2009 (claimed scores) is
> EF8M with over 11,000 QSOs in 48 hours, single
> operator. Quite amazing! He
> never changed his CW speed, set to 42wpm, except on
> 160 metres. I was his
> Observer and was horrified when I first heard him
> operating this way but
> during many hours of monitoring I didn't hear a
> single query or repeat and
> he always had callers. Apart from being loud his
> main factor, I suggest, was
> size of pile-up and therefore QRM on his frequency.
> He seldom had more than
> a few calling - a small pile-up. So, I've adjusted
> my thinking somewhat -
> but only for those special circumstances. As others
> have said, flexibility
> is paramount.
>
> As to slowing down to help the newcomer - sorry, an
> Olympic athlete doesn't
> do that. He only wants to win! If I'm going hammer
> & tongs to win I'd only
> slow the keyer if it helped to increase my QSO rate
> at that moment.
> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Wilson" <colin at sheffield-live.co.uk>
> To: <me at gerrylynch.co.uk>;
> <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] ARRL CW
>
>
>> Gerry
>>
>> I knew someone would fire a full broadside in my
>> direction!
>> Sorry but I disagree with most of your statements
>> below. Perhaps the use
>> of
>> "good rate" was not correct what I should say I
>> guess is that its an
>> ideal
>> speed at which even new operators to CW contesting
>> can cope with. (or even
>> some old hands for that matter!). Yes its a
>> contest but please remember we
>> do this for fun, it is after all a hobby! Now I'm
>> not saying that we
>> shouldn't aim to win every time but its not always
>> about speed, there are
>> other factors to consider too if you want to
>> maximise your score! Speeding
>> up number i.e., RST and serial number is possible
>> as even new CW ops can
>> usually cope with faster CW when it comes to
>> numbers! I have to say that
>> most people do send 599 unless your on a VHF or
>> UHF contest then you can
>> expect to get a real report! (I found this out
>> recently in the UKAC as
>> this
>> was my first time entry this year!)
>> Now this leads me to working from a DX side of the
>> pile up, yes they can
>> be
>> great fun and yes they can fall apart very easily
>> if not controlled but
>> doing it at 42wpm is not going cut it I'm afraid,
>> in my opinion its better
>> to TX at a speed that everyone in the pile up can
>> read first time, its bad
>> enough trying to copy callsigns in pile ups and
>> getting them right first
>> time with real QRM and some times QSB, there is no
>> point in leaving
>> someone
>> wondering if they got the right details they
>> needed and that I have their
>> call correct in the log! Worse still is having to
>> repeat it over and over
>> until they do get it either way its slows the rate
>> down but lets face it
>> unless the QSO is right in both logs then you need
>> not bother having it!
>> Unfortunately the use of the DX cluster can be a
>> problem and more and more
>> we see stations calling not having a clue even if
>> they can hear the DX
>> station and just hope that they get in the log! If
>> by some pure chance
>> they
>> can hear the the DX station but cant read the CW
>> as its too fast for them,
>> they will call anyway and if they do hear a bit of
>> their call come back
>> they
>> will automatically respond, if the timing of the
>> QSO is okay then they
>> will
>> put a tick in the box of their DXCC and await the
>> confirmation of a QSL
>> card!. How often have you seen on this and other
>> reflectors statements
>> like
>> "I think I'm in the log", this of course can be
>> for any number of reasons
>> but very often they are just not 100% that it was
>> their call that came
>> back!
>> I will always try to give everyone a chance in a
>> contest and all I'm
>> trying
>> to say is to stay flexible and "keep it sensible"
>> and remember not
>> everyone
>> can read 42wpm!
>>>
>>>
>> 73
>>
>> Colin G3VCQ/J38CW
>> www.sheffield-live.co.uk
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gerry Lynch" <gerrylynch at freenetname.co.uk>
>> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] ARRL CW
>>
>>
>>> Colin Wilson wrote:
>>>> For me I think a good CQ rate is
>>>> between 26-28wpm, most can read this with ease
>>>> and its fast enough to
>>>> keep
>>>> your rates up
>>> It depends what you mean by a "good CQ rate".
>>> One could argue that a
>>> good CQ speed is one at which both you and the
>>> people calling you are
>>> comfortable. And if 26-28 wpm is the speed
>>> you're happy operating at,
>>> good for you. Ultimately contesting is a hobby
>>> and the way that
>>> maximises your enjoyment of it is the right way
>>> to do it.
>>>
>>> However, if you're talking about winning
>>> contests, your hypothesis is
>>> arguable from G. Arguable, although not an
>>> argument I would agree with
>>> in any big rate contest on 80 and up. (160 and
>>> BERU are different!)
>>> However, from the Caribbean in WW or ARRL CW, it
>>> isn't even close to
>>> being fast enough to either maximise the score or
>>> maximise the number of
>>> people who get to work your multiplier. Hell,
>>> from a decent station in
>>> GI it isn't even close to being fast enough in
>>> peak propagation periods.
>>>
>>> You cannot work four people a minute on CW if
>>> you're sending at 28 wpm.
>>> Simple as.
>>>
>>> If the band is wide open and you've just been
>>> spotted, one can run quite
>>> successfully from the Caribbean at 42 wpm. At
>>> G6PZ I had the keyer up
>>> to about 36 wpm after a few early cluster spots
>>> in last year's WW CW and
>>> it was the right thing to do. Yes, it scares
>>> some people off, but if
>>> the pileup is getting too big to manage that's
>>> exactly what you want to
>>> do. Joe Slow with his hand cranked 16 wpm will
>>> not slow down the rate
>>> in the middle of a big pileup (chaos *WILL*
>>> result, and screw things up
>>> for everyone), and if things thin out you can and
>>> should always back off
>>> the speed a little and he can get you then.
>>>
>>> A contest is (and the name should be a giveaway
>>> here) a competitive
>>> activity. Not a QSO party, a DX propagation
>>> challenge or a means of
>>> introducing newcomers to CW. I remember starting
>>> in contesting and not
>>> being able to copy the guys blurring away at what
>>> was probably only
>>> around 30 wpm. But there were, and still are,
>>> plenty of slower ops to
>>> pick off up the band for beginners, and like in
>>> any other competitive
>>> activity, one achieves more as one's skill level
>>> improves. The way to
>>> get more people active in contesting is to have
>>> enough challenges for
>>> them to do once they get through the beginners
>>> phase - *not* to limit
>>> everyone to a mediocre level of skill.
>>>
>>> Have a listen to where the really chaotic pileups
>>> occur in the next big
>>> contest - is it on the guys sending at 40 wpm
>>> (and contrary to the
>>> nonsense I hear on this reflector after every
>>> major contest, the only
>>> operator I've ever heard send much faster than
>>> that was 4L5A at D4B) or
>>> is it on the guys sending at 18 wpm?
>>>
>>> As far as speeded up reports go, I'm with EI5DI.
>>> I cannot understand
>>> the weird obsession G3SJJ has with attacking
>>> this. I've done it, I
>>> don't do it any more, but I can't see what the
>>> big issue is. Are you
>>> really worried that RU1A is going to give you a
>>> 589 report or something?
>>>
>>> Oh, and yes, there were some disgustingly broad
>>> signals on 15 last
>>> weekend. I'd add RL3A to the list of offenders.
>>> But kudos to the E7
>>> station (can't remember the callsign, sorry) who
>>> I called to tell had 5
>>> kHz clicks who immediately adjusted something and
>>> returned to normality.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Gerry GI0RTN
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list