Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.  (Read 19359 times)
K3STX
Member

Posts: 1001




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2012, 06:06:17 AM »

Not sure how to break this bad habit...

-Milt

practice
Logged
W8MW
Member

Posts: 326




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2012, 08:24:07 AM »

Hi Ray.  Interesting topic you started here.  And many thoughtful responses.  I was a member of the original CFO club (Chicken Fat Operators) thirty-some years ago.  There was a time when QRQ CW was part of my daily diet and I’d have a double helping on the weekends.  Most of the fellows really getting it done at conversational speeds 50-100 wpm do it every day.
 
If you are really interested in sending fast as well as receiving fast, a CW keyboard is the tool for the job.  Keyboards get snubbed by the purists because they think the only ones using them are not true CW operators.  People trying to fake their way thru.  While there may be some of that, the critics ignore the fact that amateurs were using CW keyboards strictly as sending devices long before personal computers and Morse decoders.  The CW enthusiasts using them are folks who have maxed out their sending speeds on straight keys, bugs and paddles.  It’s generally felt that most of us have a finite top end with those traditional sending devices and past that speed we manufacture CW slop.  In my case the only way I could ever send clean code past 40 wpm was with a keyboard.
 
I agree with your premise about establishing the speed at which you wish to operate.  The old school philosophy says whoever initiates the CQ sets the pace for what is to follow.  It’s the operator’s discretion whether or not he wishes to acknowledge someone sending slower.  I’ve known some awesome CW men who were also absolute jerks.  I couldn’t ignore someone answering my CQ.   I eventually found the best way to pursue an interest in high speed operating is to hang out with others of like interest.  That’s easier said than done these days because most of the grand old men of CW are SK and the bands are full of CW runts.  But if you listen a lot and tune around, you are bound to find operators you want to spend some time with.  Give them a call.  See if you can make a sked.  It only takes one like-minded CW friend to get you spending more quality time on the air.

73, Mike W8MW
Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 255




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2012, 12:35:46 AM »

Hello Mike,

I am glad that I checked back on this thread.  Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes most of the input here has been quite good and helpful, yours included!

Your mention of the keyboard for sending clean Morse at higher than hand-sent speeds is an idea that I've gone back-and-forth with for quite a long time.  I'm 'old school' in many ways, but It's clear to me that I easily listen to CW (head copy) at rates much higher than my ability to send by hand at this point.  So far, when warmed-up, I've been measured sending clean code (the only code that counts) just below 40 WPM with my bug: any higher, and it begins to turn to poor code. That seems to be the limit of my controlled muscle twitch speed.  Because I am already sending just below 40 WPM, I don't believe that switching to paddles would give me much more 'headroom' than where I am right now. Keyboard generated Morse is likely the only way that I will be able to make full use of and to further build my copy speed in actual QSOs. A looong time ago I worked high speed military Morse intercept, in between other things, so that's one reason why my receive speed has always been faster than my sending speed and also why I can copy some REALLY terrible code to this day.   Shocked

I know that historically, there have been ops who could send accurate code much faster than 40 with a bug, but those were often full-time Morse operators and unfortunately, those days are gone. Your suggestions and others are beginning to lean me toward keyboarding for those speeds where I can presently head copy, because the world above 50 WPM is calling. Evidently YOU have heard that Lorelei Call also.  To be able to head copy but not participate, is only half the fun and I do hear from you and others that once I am able to participate in that world above 50,  my ability to copy at even higher speeds will increase rapidly.  This makes sense, because we all know that when we actually converse in Morse code, THAT is when the real learning happens, whether as a beginner, or as an old Op like me. 

Can't sleep - time to go put on the headphones and see what's happening out there...



73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._

Logged
AE7UT
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2012, 09:42:47 AM »

Great information for us "CW runts".

I'm about 6 months into CW and as a new ham it's nice to know what the attitudes are out there.
I don't answer QRQ CQs but I also spend a LOT of time wishing there was someone to contact.  
Last night I was listening and calling for about an hour with no contact.  
Not a single QRS CQ and not a single reply to my CQ.
"Not much fun for little Harpo" (If you have young kids you'll get that one)
I know that's part of the game and I'm fine with it.

I really appreciate those of you who take the time to help me learn and practice. 

Stan AE7UT  
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 10:14:18 AM by AE7UT » Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2012, 10:08:26 AM »

Great information for us "CW runts".

I'm about 6 months into CW and as a new ham it's nice to know what the attitudes are out there.
I don't answer QRQ CQs but I also spend a LOT of time wishing there was someone to contact.  I was listening and calling for about an hour with no contact.  Not a single QRS CQ and not a single reply to my CQ.

Stan AE7UT  

That is quite not the general behavior. The average ham is able to copy between 15 and 20 wpm.
But beginners are always welcomed.  Don't speed-up, 'runt' was talking about the quality of the code, not the speed. When you try to sent too fast and too early, just as with handwriting, you get unreadable code. That is what runt is meant by. More general the used ham-talk is QLF which should mean "try sending with your other foot. "  

May be you work QRP,  your antenna is mismatched. When you hear only noise, it has no sense to call CQ because the band is dead.

I remember my first transmissions over 65 yrs ago, with a home build transmitter 807 (a tube) in the final. Looking for the dip, and a bulb as antenna current meter. There was current and there was a dip. But I could not make any connections in CW ,

 till I discovered the final was tuned on 40 meter instead op 80 as expected.  So when people are calling CQ 80, it is to prevent than someone on 40 is answering...

I always welcome new comers, in case of a 5 wpm ragchew QSO I couple  a bunch of messages under the knobs of my keyboard, put the speed on 5, start transmitting, go 5 minutes downstairs to get a cup of coffee, and when I come back, the keyboard was just giving the key to the QSO partner. No problem.

Don't forget there are still a lot of retired professional radio officers hanging around. May be even more then the guys that just learned the code because they wanted to learn it. It is often the only thing they can, so excuse them they feel urged to humiliate people that learned it just for fun, and for preserving a piece of radio history.


73
Bob
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 10:36:56 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 255




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2012, 02:30:22 PM »

Hi Stan,

It 'seems' as though you're dissapointed because there are hams who learn and practice at a much higher speed, which has made you feel excluded.  Calling CQ is like fishing: the fish respond to different 'bait'. Morse at differing speeds has a different 'flavor' and the hobby after all, is about enjoyment and etc. When I'm on my straight key, I top out in the mid-20's (but THAT is a lot of work) and yet am often sending slower in the QRP bands, with my headphones screwed-on tightly, listening for the little guys in the noise - hopefully they're out camping somewhere. I'm not into 'contacts', but search for and love a good conversation ("rag chew") in code, so faster CW, which for me means in the mid-to high thirties, means better, faster paced exchanges of view and ideas via Morse code.

Like Bob mentioned, the average CW  conversation is probably 15-20 WPM so, perhaps at a speed that you are not comfortable with.  He's right-on with that and I notice especially that though we have some fine high speed operators here in the USA,  the European operators I hear (I'm in a good location for that) on-average are even faster than the average US operators. This is not a snub by European operators toward us and the faster operators are not insulting you by being fast.  However, many of us ARE comfortable - in fact MORE comfortable at higher speeds.

As far as the word 'runt' , in context, my understanding was this: I believe that he was talking about AGE , because he was talking about the 'grand old men' of Morse dying-off, leaving the younger crowd behind. We also come from an age where being able to soak-up the occasional 'thump' is to be expected.  Heck, Bob and I have 'thumped' each other on this forum a time or two, but it's just usually a good humored, 'gotcha' type of exchange, or he thinks that I'm not correct and I believe that he is not - so what? We're both entitled to our opinions and Ham radio is our 'campfire' and we're the old warriors who sit, talk and occasionally slug their fellow code-warrior in the arm, but always pass the beer & meat around the campfire to the next man. Thick skin builds good friends.

Speed is not everything: I'm 56 and love to ride my big, heavy balloon tire bike. Face it though, I'm not able to keep up with the younger road-warriors on their race bikes.  It's not a snub by them, it's just a fact. The difference is that you can improve your code speed - if you like- by doing exactly what you ARE already doing - getting on the air and pushing the envelope a little. With me, I'm just enjoying peddeling along the shoreline, smelling the flowers and the sea breeze while I scan for the last of the wild blueberries. It's a different 'flavor' of riding,  just like fast/medium and slow code has different flavors. Remember though:  to the 60, 75 or 100 WPM boys, I am a slow coder! ha ha  Life is like that.

As for no answer sometimes - calling CQ is like fishing and the fish do not have to bite. They're not being rude - they're just going about their own lives.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 03:00:10 PM by W7ASA » Logged
AE7UT
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2012, 04:15:25 PM »

Ray sorry if I came across as "feeling" snubbed.  I don't feel excluded or picked on just a bit
let down.  I didn't realize what a problem this was.

For many of us new hams there are no classes to attend, no Elmer to inquire of, and so I
was a bit disappointed in what I'm hearing from you guys.  There is no dearth of information
that can be gleaned from the web, so most of us KNOW not to bug you QRQ boys.
You must have begun this post because of your frustration with the misinformed who reply to
your CQ when they should just sit back and try to learn by copying you.  I think that is what
most of us do. 

Have a great day and really no problem on this end.

Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 255




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2012, 05:03:37 PM »

Hi Stan,


Thanks for responding.  First, we all know that in text, it's difficult to 'read' a person's intentions like we could across a table.  If I misread your post - I do apologize.  I'm doing my best to understand from this side of the keyboard. 

Oooooh believe me, I DO remember learning and then building code skills.  It was a long time ago, but first off, I never thought that I would ever even LEARN the Morse code, much less pass the 5 WPM test for my novice (shortly after the last dinosaur died... ha ha) There was a time when even ten words per minute seemed like machine gun fire and I have plenty of ops on the other end just dissapear when I tried to call them. Even after I had a couple of hundred QSO's under my belt, I used to curse W1AW for going so FAST with their 18 wpm standard bulletin speeds, I mean, who could POSSIBLY copy such a fast bulletin?  It's funny how it all changed.

It's not a good/bad, us/them mentality, though it may seem like it at times - at least I haven't found that in general.  Instead - and this is speaking for myself - I only have so much time on the air and so when I want to get on and really stretch-out, forget everything else and just run some fast code - it's really my only opportunity to do so.  That being the case, I'm thrilled when some of the fast code crew area available to have a good rag chew.  Head copy makes code more easily conversational, but it becomes much more difficult at lower speeds because it so slow that I begin to forget what came before... heck, I can hardly remember where I put my glasses these days.   Cheesy   I do not know whether you are copying in your head yet, but you'll find it easier to have a conversation with head copy (also called "listening") rather than solid paper copy and this causes your speed to increase - naturally. Use the paper to keep notes about name, location and etc.  This makes it easier to increase receiveing speed, but unfortunately is more difficult to do at lower speed for the reason previously stated.

You're right about there generally being few or no classes and along with that fact and that you've probably had to largely self-instruct yourself in Morse says volumes about your dedication.  Solo practice with the computer programs like the EXCELLENT G4FON Koch Method FREEware can make a huge difference between actual QSOs.  I am using it for improving my own speed, by loading articles form the internet as plain text, then playing them at speeds just above my comfort zone.  So far, it's working well.  My wife is used to my eccentricities, such as laughing at joke I hear in Morse code...

Hey, for fun and a different view of Morse, download "Zen, and the Art of Radio Telegraphy":

www.qsl.net/ik0ygj/enu/index.html


I found it to be a very good read.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._
Logged
K8GJP
Member

Posts: 3




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2012, 05:28:02 PM »

It has been said it is rude to contact another station at a far slower speed then they are sending. Well this goes two ways guys.I am not a great CW op and am practicing and improving so I tend to stay up in the old novice portion of 40 7.100-7.125.

So about a week ago I am searching for a contact and the RBN told me where a 12WPM op was. so I tuned there only to be beat by a op who answered this mans CQ near 20WPM. The QRS station told them he was to fast, so the other op sped up. At this point I had the computer helping me.the station was asked again to QRS, nope 25WPM "by the computer".The QRS station then gave up and ended it on his end only to be answered by what sounded like a MG-42, and the QRS station even left his frequency as a result.

so if you don't want to slow down, don't go answering CQ's by slow ops who purposely stay in a portion of the band where other slow ops can be found. With that being said I am grateful for the ones who look for the slow ones and slow down to help us get some time on the key.And I look forward to the day I can keep up with you QRQ guys!

73
Greg
k8gjp
Logged
N3PDT
Member

Posts: 75




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2012, 06:29:34 PM »

Stan,

I sent you a  PM basically plugging SKCC and their sked page.

Doug N3PDT
Logged
GILGSN
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2012, 11:24:18 PM »

Hello Ray,

They must be using a decoder.. For me, it is easier to send than to copy. I am up to 23 characters learned so far, but I can only copy at 10wpm max. Some characters I know by sound, others I still visualize. However, I can send at 15. I don't see how someone who can send at just 15wpm could copy at 30-33... But maybe that's just me. In any case, I do not want to use a decoder, so I'll probably never copy faster then I can send. A decoder would defeat all my efforts to learn. I don't even think I'll get the SSB board for my K2 before I can send/copy at least 15wpm.

Gil.
Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 255




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2012, 04:20:37 AM »

Hi Gil,

A K2! I've heard great things about the receiver in those and have talked with several hams using them on the air.  I have the Baby-Brother of that; the KX-1 and find that Elecraft really designed a good product.  Their kits are well engineered.  I have often considered the K2 without the external amplifier to become my home station.  I can operate SSB, but the last time that I did was for an emcomm net which required voice and - truthfully - I had to find my mic.  Voice over radio is - for me - just for utility & not as enjoyable as code.  But different people enjoy different things. I have friends who tilt their head at my love of code, but then again, a CW QRP rig can be VERY effective, yet slip into a pocket to be used in remote locations for long periods of time - because of it's low energy use, while SSB voice requires much more power & complication for the same information transfer.  Keep up with your code studies & practice, because really - it's worth it!

Your ear is better than any decoder, when it comes to hand sent Morse.  Data modes are different, because they are specifically timed and modulated by machine for machine copy, but the very slight variations in timing and the on/off method of keying Morse makes machine copy of hand sent Morse a problem for even very good programmers. YMMV. Even machine to machine CW cannot match the human ear/brain combination for digging signals out - yet. I have gotten a good grin once or twice when a friend had his computer copying a mutual Buddy of ours, and then the signal took a deep fade.  Once, I was in my friend's shack when this happened and he went apoplectic "Ahhh! he's too weak to copy!"  Nonsense, I said and he challanged me to copy him - no big deal: so with pencil and paper I gave him 100% hard copy easily, because the human ear can absolutely copy code well below the noise level and this was maybe 15 to 18 WPM - a fine speed in high noise/weaker signal conditions.  

Sending faster than copying is normal in the beginning.  I think that it is because you KNOW what you are sending, so you can concentrate on your timing and rythm with your message already in your mind.  Receiving, we don't normally know what the other Operator is going to send, other than the formatted letters RST, QTH, NAME... after that it could be about anything. I know that you've probably heard it before, but understand that you copy better when relaxed, yet when we miss a letter or two, it is NATURAL to tense-up and this causes us to loose more letters...this can snowball, causing us to loose a lot of text before we regroup.   The best hint I ever heard for copying Morse is when you miss a letter, just put a dot on the paper and keep moving, don't even be concerned.  We were trained to do this while intercepting enemy cipher traffic so that the cryptographers could have an accurate letter count to begin their analysis of messages, but it also works well in conversation.  Really - just let it go. On paper, it would look like this.

"QTH NEW .ORK C.TY, NY"  would be very easy to understand as New York City, NY  as long as the letter count and approximate spacing is correct.

You'll get it!  and the more that you do, the more relaxed you'll be in copy,  the more relaxed the easier it is TO copy. Morse practice should be enjoyable - a challange as you increase your comfort with speed building, but still enjoyable.


Enjoy your K2!


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._
« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 04:50:04 AM by W7ASA » Logged
GILGSN
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2012, 09:29:56 AM »

Thanks Ray, I'll use that dot trick..
I also built a K1, and I like it even better than the K2.
LCWO.net has proved to be of a great help for learning Morse. The most difficult part is to write fast, and try to add letters into words in my head. I must have the short term memory of a goldfish  Roll Eyes

Gil.
Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 255




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2012, 09:57:27 AM »

Hey Gil -

1st, I visited your site and that's a good idea, 2nd I like your adaptation of the Gadsden Militia flag as a coiled mic & cord!  ha ha   The 'visual' speaks volumes.

I found that it is easier to copy clear text in cursive writing (long hand) rather than block letters, which makes sense because 'long hand' is faster than block lettering, which is one of the reasons why we use cursive for anything else. When I decide to 'copy' rather than to merely 'listen' to code in my head, I either use cursive writing or type what I hear.  It's much faster and less mental gymnastics. Copying marine weather transmissions at 25 WPM 'with a stick' takes normal concentration, but in block print, it's really tough. On a 'mill' (telegrapher's typewriter') or your laptop keyboard, it's a single, FAST tap for each letter and an easily conditioned response. This was how we military intercept operators were trained - all keyboard, with pencil for 'survival' copy.

We've gotten off topic, but For TEOTWAKI comms, it's likely to be a lot like wilderness operations in that, it's tough to beat pencil and paper copy of message traffic.  Laptops are amazing things, but can be tough to keep them alive and well fed in an unfriendly environment. I'd rather have 10 word per minute CW via radio than try walking a thousand miles with a note...(though the exercise might do me some good - ha ha)


Have look at "Zen and the Art of Radio Telegraphy" free on-line.  There is a lot of good and enjoyable information in there for telegraphers.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._

Ps.  I'll hope over to your site and we can continue this discussion over there.
Logged
2E0OZI
Member

Posts: 270




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2012, 11:12:24 AM »

I think I must be relatively lucky that in Europe there are a large number of CW ops calling at a speed I can understand pretty easily, especially in the former Eastern Bloc countries. Looking at my log shows a lot of Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Slovenia etc....
Logged

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
George Orwell
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!