Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CW\s+slow\?\s+No\s+problem\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:11:09 +0700
You have slow CW? My solution: K3 set at 400 bandwidth. P3 panadapter and large monitor. Start at bottom of band and tune center of slim visual pip. K3, spots, and your head confirm callers' letters.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00369.html (8,069 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:10:59 -0500
I received comments from some of my friends that they didn't want to wade in because it would be like driving a unicycle on an interstate. There were some doing 40-50WPM... not that there is anything
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00373.html (9,434 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:10:41 -0600
I completely fail to understand why so many operators insist on calling CQ at 45 wpm, when no one is coming back.  (There were lots of them last weekend, especially from zone 33.)  This seem entirely
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00377.html (10,469 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Adam Mercier <adam@kenbrio.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:33:50 -0700
Thank you, Scott. Im not a CW contester (I prefer phone and RTTY contests) mostly because I have a 15 wpm ear, and my decoding software doesnt do well on 30+ wpm. I decided to give this contest a try
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00381.html (13,132 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Larry <lknain@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:08:58 -0500
If you count on a cluster connection for the decode you only need to figure out if they are actually calling you. The cluster content seems to be better these days but still has errors and doesn't co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00391.html (11,772 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:45:27 -0600
My point, exactly! 73, Scott K9MA On 11/28/2017 21:33, Adam Mercier wrote: Thank you, Scott. Im not a CW contester (I prefer phone and RTTY contests) mostly because I have a 15 wpm ear, and my decodi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00393.html (12,627 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:22:07 +0000
Im also not a good cw op - I use a software decoder as backup and ask for plenty of repeats. Thats why I dont score high in CW contests as I do in phone. The ultra fast stations were hard to copy unl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00395.html (15,296 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:49:24 +0000
While 45 might seem a bit excessive, guys like ZF2MJ and TI7W, known World-class contesters, were using speeds like that. As a run op at an M/2, I spent 95 percent of my CQ time at 40 WPM and backed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00401.html (12,808 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Adam Mercier <adam@kenbrio.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:01:50 -0700
Does high-speed CW have a place in contesting? Absolutely! I dont think anyone would argue that. However, I think youd agree that CQing with no answers (which happens to even the mega-stations later
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-11/msg00403.html (15,321 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:11:49 -0500
Actually, there is another item that is emerging as important, it's the overt attempt of the Dual CQers to package the exchanges into a format that suits their mode. Faster bursts of CW with empty ti
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00001.html (8,162 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:40:14 +0000
If you're relying on the cluster, you have 2 things to worry about. One, when they reply to you, and two that the cluster actually has the right call. Sometimes stations move, or someone reports a bu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00003.html (13,117 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:52:31 +0000
" A fact I CAN claim is that there are several fast stations who do not have my call in their logs" applies for this station too. Why? Simple.... if the CQ is running along at 40 - 45wpm.. fine.. I a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00004.html (19,764 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:50:53 -0500
Great answer, Bob. In fact, this is the reality of my 35+ years of contesting. "One of the most interesting things that I have learned after making some 900,000+ contest qs over the past 44 years, is
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00006.html (18,741 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Tom Osborne <w7why1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:05:23 -0800
If someone answers you at 10 - 15 wpm and sends their exchange twice, chances are someone in their skip zone that can't hear them will come on and start CQ'ing on your frequency because there is a LO
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00008.html (8,525 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:54:36 -0600
My point was NOT about average speed, just the speeds when the rate is very low and lots of CQ's are going unanswered.  When the rate is high, it makes sense to go QRQ. 73, Scott K9MA Speeds are take
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00009.html (9,233 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:01:08 -0500
The best and most-experienced contesters adjust their sending speed to the conditions, activity level and number of callers depending on where their antennas are pointed. Their energy level is high a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00013.html (15,969 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:33:31 -0500
That seemed suspect so I decided to do an analysis. Speeds are taken from RBN, scores are from 3830. These are the top world scores in competitive categories. M/2 - CR3W ~30M points - average 30WPM M
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00018.html (15,379 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:32:26 +0000
RBN captures CQs (I believe only/mostly CQs) so what youre seeing here is the average speed of CQs, not necessarily the speed at which someone is running a pileup. Thus, CQing QRQ seems not to be fav
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00019.html (9,923 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:51:50 -0500
I think most contesters would be able to copy a callsign and exchange at 30-35 WPM, even if they had to listen to it a couple of times. So that seems like a good range. I think that the majority of s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00025.html (9,660 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:40:18 -0800
Or why not put the effort into building code speed?Our contesting club has at least a dozen members with no-code licenses who have done exactly that.There are lots of tools on the internet -- check o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-12/msg00026.html (9,396 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu