eHam

eHam Forums => CW => Topic started by: W7ASA on June 30, 2012, 05:40:55 PM



Title: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on June 30, 2012, 05:40:55 PM
A general guide in Ham Morse is to call CQ at the speed at which you wish to converse.  
Another general guide is to match the speed of the station who calls you.  However, sometimes this is taken too far.

-...-

We all had to start somewhere in our Morse code journey and it's well known that accuracy & speed are built with time, determination and practice. It's also known that if someone answers a “CQ” but is a little bit slower, the faster CQ station can generally be expected to slow down a little bit, if necessary. However, I do question whether it's polite for a very slow station to answer a much faster CQ, knowing full well that he's unable to keep-up with what he is hearing, yet expecting the fast CQ'ing station to drastically drop back to accommodate this slow pace.

Why does this matter?  There are times that (like others) I REALLY want to have a good, faster-than-average Morse rag-chew and for me "fast" is about 30-35 WPM where I can easily copy & use my favorite bug.  (Though I enjoy head copy in the 40's, I am not comfortable sending at 40+ WPM; my hands are showing signs of age and cannot always get the key to cooperate.)  I find that higher than average speed CW is much more enjoyable, almost exhilarating & I often have great, flowing conversations because it's easier to converse at those speeds. Really, it's rather like anything that you've worked hard to develop: you want to USE it!  

We all know that it's easy to copy a callsign which is sent repeatedly AT SPEEDS WELL ABOVE OUR ABILITY TO CONVERSE. Knowing that I want more speed than most would enjoy, I tune the dial away from the crowds and call CQ at something sane, like 30-33 WPM, yet  over half of the respondents are under 20 WPM, some below 15 WPM.  To me, this is NOT the civility of “QRS” any longer, because the other Op is not asking me to slow down a 'little bit'. He's expecting me to cut my speed in half.  Now folks, that's not polite at all. When I want to QSO at a respectable 15 WPM I call CQ at 15 WPM on my straight key – obviously- and we can move the speed up or down a little bit as needed from there.

This works two ways. I enjoy head-copy of the high speed hams who QSO in the mid-40's WPM , but they are too fast for me to hold a conversation with because I simply cannot send that quickly. Because I know that I am not fast enough on the key, I do not jump in on them, because it would slow them down and that would be rude.


ZUT & 73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: 2E0OZI on July 01, 2012, 12:23:11 AM
I'm a beginner Ray, and I tend to do as you suggest. I stay away from the low ends of the CW portion mostly, and if someone is calling pretty fast (say if I cant get thier call after 3 tries!) then I would not respond. I will say I have had it the other way - I was calling CQ and the responding station came back at 30wpm when I send at about 10/12 or so.

Its only a hobby, so I just get on with it.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on July 01, 2012, 01:19:17 AM
Oh. I've had that happen too.  I have a great straight key made by G3YUH and enjoy trying to produce as close to machine perfect code as I can while using it. Naturally with a straight key, this is all at slower speeds. Rarely, but occasionaly, after a slower CQ, suddenly, from out of the sun swoops in a fellow who is very much faster on his paddles than I am on a straight key.  It takes time to pull the plug on the long handle straight key and to plug in the Vibroplex, probably adjust weights - and frankly, that's just not a polite way to treat another ham.  I agree -

Like you pointed out, we're doing this for enjoyment and as an alternative to being at work.  If we were paid by the word, I might see a reason to see if the other fellow would move it along a bit faster, or if we were military passing 5 digit cipher text, I could see slowing the other fellow down to the uniform rate approved for the network to ensure uniformity and to get the 99.9% copy for the cryptographers to work with it, but for fun as hams, we have a wide range of speeds. I tend to go slow with the hand key in the QRP segments, to work some of the weak ones especially.

Best of success with your Morse code!  As you know, it's enjoyable and very effective.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH on July 01, 2012, 01:59:00 AM
Rarely, but occasionaly, after a slower CQ, suddenly, from out of the sun swoops in a fellow who is very much faster on his paddles than I am on a straight key.  It takes time to pull the plug on the long handle straight key and to plug in the Vibroplex, probably adjust weights - and frankly, that's just not a polite way to treat another ham.  I agree -


Ray, why not keeping your bug in parallel with your straight key? You immediately can switch always by just replacing your hand.

I work with a home brew keyer, the output is a reed relay, so I can key everything, in tube and solid state, and so  with an electronic dual paddle Iambic can immediately switch from paddles to straight key.

Most rag chew around 40 wpm (I  cannot sent faster) is done with well known calls hanging around on known frequencies, so as a matter of fact it looks like some walk-in social club.
Realise that, according to my estimation only1% of the CW hams (which in turn are  1% of the ham population) are able to do that and enjoy it .

It is cutting edge behavior Ray. So...

Look in the VHSC and EHSC member list on www.morsecode.nl under the link "complete memberlist" and you find the calls of members, in order to invite via email for a sked.

Bob


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on July 01, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
Hi Bob,


Yes, I really should just make a parallel connection for keys.  That will make my switch from straight key to speed-key instant & easy - good point.

---

Thank you for the link. This is an interesting cooincidence, because I read for the first time about the VHSC and EHSC clubs in "Zen and the Art of Radio Telegraphy" by IK0YGJ. It was a very enjoyable .pdf "book" and he also spoke highly of those two specific clubs that you recommend.  Now you gave me the links to those two clubs, so it's time for me to take action and to get involved! I will look into this.  It is more good motivation to continue to increase my enjoyment of Morse code.


Thank You,

73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: HA7AP on July 01, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
A general guide in Ham Morse is to call CQ at the speed at which you wish to converse.  
Another general guide is to match the speed of the station who calls you.  However, sometimes this is taken too far.

-...-

We all had to start somewhere in our Morse code journey and it's well known that accuracy & speed are built with time, determination and practice. It's also known that if someone answers a “CQ” but is a little bit slower, the faster CQ station can generally be expected to slow down a little bit, if necessary. However, I do question whether it's polite for a very slow station to answer a much faster CQ, knowing full well that he's unable to keep-up with what he is hearing, yet expecting the fast CQ'ing station to drastically drop back to accommodate this slow pace.

Why does this matter?  There are times that (like others) I REALLY want to have a good, faster-than-average Morse rag-chew and for me "fast" is about 30-35 WPM where I can easily copy & use my favorite bug.  (Though I enjoy head copy in the 40's, I am not comfortable sending at 40+ WPM; my hands are showing signs of age and cannot always get the key to cooperate.)  I find that higher than average speed CW is much more enjoyable, almost exhilarating & I often have great, flowing conversations because it's easier to converse at those speeds. Really, it's rather like anything that you've worked hard to develop: you want to USE it!  

We all know that it's easy to copy a callsign which is sent repeatedly AT SPEEDS WELL ABOVE OUR ABILITY TO CONVERSE. Knowing that I want more speed than most would enjoy, I tune the dial away from the crowds and call CQ at something sane, like 30-33 WPM, yet  over half of the respondents are under 20 WPM, some below 15 WPM.  To me, this is NOT the civility of “QRS” any longer, because the other Op is not asking me to slow down a 'little bit'. He's expecting me to cut my speed in half.  Now folks, that's not polite at all. When I want to QSO at a respectable 15 WPM I call CQ at 15 WPM on my straight key – obviously- and we can move the speed up or down a little bit as needed from there.

This works two ways. I enjoy head-copy of the high speed hams who QSO in the mid-40's WPM , but they are too fast for me to hold a conversation with because I simply cannot send that quickly. Because I know that I am not fast enough on the key, I do not jump in on them, because it would slow them down and that would be rude.


ZUT & 73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._

Hi Ray!
Most of the time, I send CQ at 25 to 30 WPM, but guys calls me back at 20 or below.
You know, there is nothing wrong with it. They just want to have a short QSO with a QRQ operator thats all, so we shouldn't really cry about this.
Most of the QRQ operators in the USA and EU, knows each other pretty well.
Most of us are members of different clubs, like the CFO (Chicken Fat Operators) in USA, or the VHSC (Very High Speed Club) in EU.
There are also logging programs, that can show you a person's membership as soon as you type his/her call sign in your log. You will know right away, that you can send faster code to that person.
Personally, I don't have any problem having a 20 WPM conversation with some one at all.
I also enjoy 60 to 70 WPM conversational speed too. As you said, I also copy code in my head and send it on my dual lever paddle.
All in all, one might bump in to a couple of slow guys, but believe me or not.....if you are a active QRQ operator after one or two slow QSO's you will bump in to some real fast guys too. I know it by experience :-) Have fun on the bands and enjoy CW.
I hope to catch you on the air soon.

73 Imi HA7AP




Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on July 01, 2012, 01:07:55 PM
60 -70 WPM~  That is simply amazing. I see that I have something wonderful to pursue!

I hope to continue to build my accuracy & speed to be able to do this also. Right now, I am training using the G4FON program at 50 to 55 WPM by loading the text of articles that I enjoy into the program.  At 50+ WPM I am maybe 75% copy - at best, but it is improves rapidly.  When I drop the speed to even 45 WPM the copy is excellent.  This is encouraging.  Another aspect that I enjoy about this program is how realistically you can put in QSB, QRM and etc. into the practice sessions. Any other recommendations for off-air speed training I would love to hear, especially from those of you who operate above 50 WPM.

I do remember when I was a teen and first learning the code that 18 words per minute from W1AW bulletins seemed like a machine gun!  Soon it was a slow and easy pace, very good for pencil copy.  It just goes to show how the human mind is so adaptable, able to learn and to change.

Thank you for your reply.  I was amazed to learn of the clubs formed to enjoy the very highest of speeds on the air. I will look into the C.F.O. (strange name?!)  also, since they are on this side of the Atlantic.  Fortunately, with my location on the eastern seaboard of the USA I can usually have strong QSO's with EU stations several times during the day/night under average conditions.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K3STX on July 01, 2012, 06:25:47 PM
Ray,
What I used to do when I was QRQ (before switching to a bug, which limits me to 30 wpm or so) was to ignore answers to my 40wpm CQ that came back at 15 wpm. I don't think ignoring a response is any more rude than answering a 40+wpm CQ at 15 wpm.

But even with my bug, when I mention I can QRQ, the guy can blast away at 60 wpm while I am stuck sending at 30 wpm with my bug.

Paul


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AK7V on July 02, 2012, 08:39:32 AM
I usually call CQ at around 30wpm and if someone answers slower, I assume they can copy me (they answered, afterall) but might not be able to send at my speed.  I don't slow down unless asked or it becomes obvious that they aren't copying me.

I've had some nice chats this way -- me sending at 30+ wpm, them understanding everything and responding at ~20 WPM.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on July 02, 2012, 05:14:04 PM
You know, that's a good point.  I've been on a straight key & in contact with someone using a keyer before and let them know that I was perfectly able to COPY them QRQ, so please maintain -or increase- their speed as they feel comfortable. However,  I would be responding as fast as I could on a straight key, though naturally that would not be as fast as their keying. You're right though,  it could be that on the oper end of the link, there are equipment limitations or some personal limitation with sending ONLY, while the Op's receive capability may by just fine. 

Food for thought - Thanks!

73 de Ray
W7ASA  ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K8AXW on July 03, 2012, 09:01:11 AM
Ray:  You make some very compelling points..... however, there is one exception that comes to mind. 

Occasionally some newbie simply wants a signal report or a brief contact with a new state or country.  I try to accommodate these but, like you, consider it bad practice if they try to continue with a long winded QSO at a very low speed.



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K4AHO on July 03, 2012, 11:22:36 AM
I been doing CW since 1954, not continuously but it was always my first love. I am a third generation ham and all before me were CW operators. I suspect better than I...   But I think Amateur Radio is not about technology but the Art and Skill of Communication.   As for CW I think it's not about speed or even accuracy but Fellowship, friendship between people with a shared passion...   I operate both Straight Key and Paddle/Keyer and I will gladly slow down to whatever speed the other operator is comfortable with.   I assume that's his sending speed but not always. If I know he can copy faster than he sends from experience I will keep a comfortable speed for me...  The important skill is the ability to sustain an interesting conversation not  to send or receive fast.   This is achieved by a willingness to accommodate the other operator. I know more conversation can occur in a given time with higher speeds but we should strive for quality not quantity...

Just my 2 cents worth...

Jim
K4AHO


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AK7V on July 03, 2012, 03:12:41 PM
Yeah, my paddle work gets very sketchy at around 35 wpm, but I can copy code sent faster.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on July 04, 2012, 12:25:04 PM
Thanks Guys -

This has really been some good discussion.  I've enjoyed reading the returns and the differing viewpoints make it interesting and thought provoking. This is probably why I enjoy rag chewing.  It gives me an opportunity to meet other hams and to learn a bit about you fellows on the other end of the key.  Occasionally, we meet more than once on the air and that makes it even better.


73 to All -

Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: WA4FNG on July 04, 2012, 07:39:47 PM
Not wanting to intrude, but this sure seemed like a good conversation to ask...

Now that I'm back after a long QRT, I'm finding that I can copy faster than I can accurately send. I'm not talking about super fast speeds here... I can head copy around 30wpm if the fist is good. However, I have trouble sending above 20wpm in a conversation manor. For contesting or DXing I can do 30-35wpm Call/RST no problem, but to actually have a conversation at that speed -- well sometimes my brain won't work that fast, and my fist gets sloppy above 25wpm. You know when people recommend not trying to visualize the code or letters in your mind while receiving? We know that just puts up a barrier. I have the opposite problem. When I'm sending, conversationally, I'm formatting complete thoughts and sentences in my head before I can send them. Not sure how to break this bad habit...

-Milt


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K3STX on July 05, 2012, 06:06:17 AM
Not sure how to break this bad habit...

-Milt

practice


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W8MW 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


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA 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.   :o

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 ..._ ._



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AE7UT 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  


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH 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


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA 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 ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AE7UT 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.



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA 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.   :D   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 ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: NM8B 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


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: N3PDT on September 06, 2012, 06:29:34 PM
Stan,

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

Doug N3PDT


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AK4YH 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.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA 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 ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AK4YH 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  ::)

Gil.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA 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.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: 2E0OZI 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....


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH on September 08, 2012, 12:22:55 PM


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


Come on Ray, that were reciphered codes, that is something else as ciphers. mid-1944 WEC was intercepting clearly some 2000 Japanese signals a day. To judge from their requests for repeats, many were taken with greater accuracy by the WEC then the addressees.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on September 08, 2012, 04:55:00 PM
Bob -

Clearly you don't know where I was, who 'they' were and when it was happening, which is certainly fine with everyone who matters.



de Ray
W7ASA  ..._ ._




Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: S51M on September 09, 2012, 12:16:42 AM
... But I think Amateur Radio is not about technology but the Art and Skill of Communication.  As for CW I think it's not about speed or even accuracy but Fellowship, friendship between people with a shared passion...   I operate both Straight Key and Paddle/Keyer and I will gladly slow down to whatever speed the other operator is comfortable with.   I assume that's his sending speed but not always. If I know he can copy faster than he sends from experience I will keep a comfortable speed for me...  The important skill is the ability to sustain an interesting conversation not  to send or receive fast.   This is achieved by a willingness to accommodate the other operator. I know more conversation can occur in a given time with higher speeds but we should strive for quality not quantity...

Just my 2 cents worth...

Jim
K4AHO


Jim, i agree 100% with you.  Excellent, that's real Ham Spirit. Congratulations!

73 ES GL DE S51M, Bruno


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH on September 09, 2012, 08:12:46 AM
... But I think Amateur Radio is not about technology but the Art and Skill of Communication.  
Jim
K4AHO


Jim, i agree 100% with you.  Excellent, that's real Ham Spirit. Congratulations!

73 ES GL DE S51M, Bruno

""Amateur Radio is not about technology "" is said here.

You can think that, but IMHO you are dead wrong. Everybody can give his own emphasis on hobby aspects, like fishing and biking or up hill skiing  but ham radio is  an extreme  particular hobby defined by governments together in a meeting of the IRU as:

1.56     amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

So when you think you can just buy commercial equipment, and your license is degraded to answering 20 out of 40 in advance published questions , with the accompanying answers, which in truth do not exits, because stupid questions don't exist,  you have to be ashamed to make your own degrading definition to suit yourself as a non valeur only communicating with other non valeurs in stupid talks about nothing or - Oh My God (which is Zeus- piece be with him - hence  so no blasphemy, because Zeus is not ur God) - "contests" exchanging 599 tu. otherwise, with a true report  you are classified as LID. Technical investigations HAHA.

So al those guys advertising keys, antennas and what have you, with  their call N3ZN etcetera labelled are dead wrong, because they use their hobby for pecuniary interest.

Bob


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: S51M on September 13, 2012, 09:07:34 AM


"
1.56     amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

So when you think you can just buy commercial equipment, and your license is degraded to answering 20 out of 40 in advance published questions , with the accompanying answers, which in truth do not exits, because stupid questions don't exist,  you have to be ashamed to make your own degrading definition to suit yourself as a non valeur only communicating with other non valeurs in stupid talks about nothing or - Oh My God (which is Zeus- piece be with him - hence  so no blasphemy, because Zeus is not ur God) - "contests" exchanging 599 tu. otherwise, with a true report  you are classified as LID. Technical investigations HAHA.

So al those guys advertising keys, antennas and what have you, with  their call N3ZN etcetera labelled are dead wrong, because they use their hobby for pecuniary interest.

Bob


Bob, intersting thinking. I guess with the very busy lifestyles, fast development and stressful jobs many radio amateurs are too tired for any technical investigations and searching for the new tech stuff in our hobby. For mostly of radioamateurs that's only - thanks God - A HOBBY and nothing else.

Commercial equipments and technical investigations give to us some kind of help and easy hobby for everyone. 
The real problem of our hobby seems to be in content of our QSO's, silence on the frequencies and less and less value of the human. Machine-to-machine communication, "5NN - false RST &  QSO No" is making us stupid.

73 De S51M, Bruno




Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: KF7ATL on November 04, 2012, 10:40:30 AM
Ray,

You make a valid point, and I can understand where you are coming from. However, being a relatively new ham (3 1/2 years) I would like to counter with this: If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, A) my speed would never improve, and  B) I would rarely be able to work any DX.

Just my 2 cents.

Garth, KF7ATL


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on November 04, 2012, 03:39:48 PM
Hi Garth,

Thanks for your toughts on this.  It's good the hear the different thoughts about code speed, CQing & etc  My question was not about moderate differences in response speeds, such as calling CQ at 25 and being answered at 18-20WPM.  That's pretty normal. It's more about calling CQ at 35 and being called at 13 WPM.  There's nothing wrong with that, except that it's pretty clear that the CQ'ing station is calling in higher speed for a reason. The answer is probably what one of the other fellows said  - and was indeed simpliicity itself: if you want to answer the station at half your calling speed, then do so and if not, then continue to call at your original higher speed.
Having a nice, rag-chew on my old Vibroplex at middle speeds like high twenties to mid-thirties is a special joy form me.

What I often do when calling is to call at different speeds from time to time. If the first few calls QRQ don't work.  I'll drop to a little over 20 , then mid- 20's and back to QRQ. It's a LOT like fly fishing; seeing what's biting at the moment.

Why you're fly fishing, let the fish select your bait.


73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: NK7Z on November 04, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
Hi Garth,

Thanks for your toughts on this.  It's good the hear the different thoughts about code speed, CQing & etc  My question was not about moderate differences in response speeds, such as calling CQ at 25 and being answered at 18-20WPM.  That's pretty normal. It's more about calling CQ at 35 and being called at 13 WPM. 

Hi Ray,

Thinking back to my Novice days, 40 years ago, I remember how hard it was to find anyone with whom I could communicate with the first few weeks...  I tend to answer a slower reply...  It is agonizing though...  I figure someone wants to try to go a bit faster so they try someone faster...  So I answer them back at about 20% faster than they transmit...  That helps them learn, and if they don't like it, they give a report and then leave... 



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: M0LEP on November 05, 2012, 02:02:22 AM
If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, A) my speed would never improve, and  B) I would rarely be able to work any DX.

The flip answer, of course, is "Call CQ yourself." Then, in theory, you'll be in control of the speed. It probably won't stop folk answering your CQ at twice the speed, though. I say "flip answer" because I find calling CQ is about a thousand times harder (give or take an order of magnitude) than answering CQ, but that's a different issue...

73, Rick M0LEP


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: G4LNA on November 05, 2012, 02:40:11 AM
If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, A) my speed would never improve, and  B) I would rarely be able to work any DX.

The flip answer, of course, is "Call CQ yourself." Then, in theory, you'll be in control of the speed. It probably won't stop folk answering your CQ at twice the speed, though. I say "flip answer" because I find calling CQ is about a thousand times harder (give or take an order of magnitude) than answering CQ, but that's a different issue...

73, Rick M0LEP

That's interesting you say that Rick, I find the opposite myself, maybe the subject of another thread rather than this one.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: AK4YH on November 05, 2012, 10:14:35 PM
Hi Ray,

I think someone answering a 40wpm CQ at 15wpm is probably using a decoder. I would suggest staying at your speed. If he replies, it means he is able to copy at that speed.

I can send twice as fast as I can copy, and that creates a whole new set of problems because I have to slow down my sending so that I don't get too fast a response. What I did is post my copy speed on my QRZ.com page. I can always update it later. If I really want a QSO, I turn on Fldigi, but that's cheating, though it works well as a backup to paper.

Gil.


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K8AG on November 06, 2012, 09:37:49 AM
However, I do question whether it's polite for a very slow station to answer a much faster CQ, knowing full well that he's unable to keep-up with what he is hearing, yet expecting the fast CQ'ing station to drastically drop back to accommodate this slow pace.

Hi Ray,

CQ means that you want to talk with anybody.  This means anybody no matter what speed.  Sometimes people come back faster than I can copy.  I do my best.  I can ALWAYS go slower.  If you only want QRQ then CQ QRQ should be the call just like CQ DX is the call when you don't want to be pestered by the locals.

My 2 cents.

73, JP, K8AG


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: STAYVERTICAL on November 06, 2012, 01:46:59 PM
Yesterday I answered a Russian station sending cq at 40wpm.
My return speed 18WPM.
I am using a hand key, have no keyer, and didn't have my PC set up for sending CW.
So 18 to 20WPM is about my present speed for comfortable rag chewing on a hand key.

We ended up having a qso for 90 minutes - a very enjoyable one.
At one time he asked me if I was ok receiving at his speed - and I explained I could receive it fine, but was using a hand key.
No problems, no fuss - the way it should be.

Most stations will not mind listening at a lower speed than they are sending, and are happy to qso.
Even contest stations will respond to slow speed replies, providing you can receive them so they don't have to repeat endlessly.

I have been at the pointy end of DX pileups, and really for these situations - the stations only want to get a log entry,
So the 599 tks qso 73 type of exchange is ok, since the goal is not a ragchew.

Provided you can receive fine at the senders initial speed, I don't see any problem in responding at a slower speed.
Some people will be annoyed, but they are in the minority in my experience.
Personally, receiving a range of speeds keeps me sharp, and also expands my QSO pool.
And in the end, thats what ham radio is about - communication between people by mutually agreed protocol.

73 - Rob


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: W7ASA on November 07, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Hey RD - Good to hear from you!

Perhaps, I'm pursuing that Morse 'Nirvanah' by sliding the Vibroplex weight back.  I have also been out where I had a straight only & so topped-out  well below the speeds at which I can receive.  That's fine.  BT&DT.  However, for me personally, I did not answer the QRQ QSOs I heard, because of my limitation [using a push button on top of a wilderness rig as a key while on a wilderness trip] at that time. I know that you are a considerate operator and that you CAN QRQ [ex-Sparkie], because I've had the honor of a couple of brief exchanges with you on marine CW.  Much like yourself, I operated at the best pace I could send good code at as closely matched to the other fellow's speed, which does vary with equipment and operating conditions. That's normal. I've also called CQ, seemingly forever, at times, whether fast, slow or in between - that' s life.  I was an ex-intercept operator [among other things] and frankly, I have not been able to send as fast as I can receive since I was 19 years old, even with a fancy set of paddles in years passed. I would LIKE to change that, which is why I send CQ a bit faster than I am absolutely comfortable sending, but still send what I am told is good code.

-...-  //BREAK//  ha ha

I was taught from the beginning:

'Call CQ at the speed you want to QSO.'
and
'Be ready to adjust your sending speed slightly for the comfort of the other station.'

If you want to go faster, ask: "QRQ?" and slower "PSE QRS" or some variation of these two.

Standard abbreviations and Q-signals increase overall throughput.

All good guidance.

Here's the original center-line of this thread,  (and I have read and appreciated the the various, interesting thoughts on the subject)

In the 'spirit' of QRS we slow down a bit now and again to help the other fellow, but to what degree is it more than 'a bit' and becomes an imposition, like someone driving 30 in a two lane highway with a line a mile long behind him?

After all - we're hams doing CW for enjoyment, rather than to maintain a net speed to pass traffic to all operators. I am sometimes calling CQ for other operators in the 35 WPM range, because I want to have a QSO near that speed. If I never push to send faster, I'll never develop the reflexes I need to send accurately, closer to the speed at which I can receive. - I would never improve.

Quick Note:  Increased speed is neither better nor worse - it is simply 'faster'.  Fast code sent poorly is nearly worthless: it tells me that you're alive, but no much else.  :o  I'd rather enjoy a conversation at 10 words per minute in clean code than trying to decipher rubbish at 35 with a ton of fills and or zero content.

As an example: I love downhill skiing but to tell you the truth, I am simply terrible at it. I'm generally good at anything physical, but downhill skiing simply illuded my grasp. However, I dated a Double Diamond skiier, we'd go our seperate ways on the slopes and meet for lunch at the lodge.  She had a BALL skiing runs with names that sounded to me like : The Spleen Shredder & etc. while I really enjoyed skiing on my favorite bunny slope called "Blue Bird" - which was ab-so-loooot-lee as mellow as it sounds.  ;D   I was looking for pristine beauty in the clear mountain air - not a near death experience. If I wanted that, I'd have stayed in uniform (or married to my ex-wife ... )    :o  

As one fellow put it quite thoughtfully:  "If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, A) my speed would never improve..."

That makes perfect sense. The same applies to me.  If I am almost constantly sending & receiving at half my code speed to please others, rather being allowed to CQ long enough to be answered by those who are a little faster, then I would never improve. In short - I'm also training to increase my accuracy at higher speeds. I don't call the fellows who are sending 60 WPM though I can answer at almost 40 with my bug. They are calling QRQ+ because they want to QSO at QRQ+ speeds..  If they wanted a QSO at my relatively crawling pace of mid-thirties, they'd have been CALLING CQ at that speed in the first place - right?  That's logical.

When using my straight key, I search for CQ's at straight key speed. Should I find none /which is most of the time/ then I CQ at straight key speed. This is what I do and recommend that same to all hams. If the ham does not hear a CQ that matches  their tastes after a short bit of knob-twisting, then call CQ - Ez-Pz!   If I am sending with the bug at higher speeds, I am - obviously - requesting contact at aproximately that speed, in the same way that I am also -logically- asking for contact in the same mode. Little faster or slower - that's fine and all part of the game.  Notice it says ' a bit faster or slower', half speed or less...  

Call CQ to attract someone in the speed range that suits you. It's fun & enjoyable.  Send your CQ in the speed range where you want to communicate. By taking the initiative YOU solve many problems, because you call for what you desire and also allow contacts for those who declare:"I don't hear anyone calling CQ at XX WPM."  I say "XX" because I rarely hear a "CQ at 30-40", which is why I am calling at those speeds in the first place.

If you don't hear "CQ": call "CQ". Other hams will thank you.



73 de Ray
W7ASA ..._ ._





Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: M0LEP on November 07, 2012, 04:47:38 PM
That's interesting you say that Rick, I find the opposite myself, maybe the subject of another thread rather than this one.

If you call CQ then each reply is a new unknown. If you're answering a CQ you've probably had a chance to listen to a few earlier QSOs, and to have noted down a fair bit of the basic info, so you'll be less likely to need to ask for repeats...

Over this side of the Atlantic I guess I hear fewer than one caller in 20 calling at less than 20wpm.

73, Rick M0LEP


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH on November 08, 2012, 12:32:44 AM

And in the end, thats what ham radio is about - communication between people by mutually agreed protocol.

73 - Rob

SIC, sick
Bob

RAY W7AHA,
Quote
I was looking for pristine beauty in the clear mountain air - not a near death experience. If I wanted that, I'd have stayed in uniform (or married to my ex-wife ... )    Shocked 

ROFL

As a matter of fact, increasing ur speed with well formed code, as far as I see, only exercising with a robot (computer) is effective. Using the bands to make rag chews with 20 or 30% missing code, due to the required speed necessary to increase your speed, is quite not polite. It says pse qrq such that I can just copy 70%


Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: K8AXW on November 09, 2012, 11:07:34 AM
ATL: 
Quote
Ray,

You make a valid point, and I can understand where you are coming from. However, being a relatively new ham (3 1/2 years) I would like to counter with this: If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, A) my speed would never improve

I got into this thread late.  This discussion is very informative; very interesting.  So far I've had no reason to comment until I read the above quote.  I felt that I had to respond to this just in case other "newbs" were following this thread.

I have to disagree with the thought that "If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, my speed would never improve."

This is entirely incorrect.  If you operated at 18wpm each and every contact, never speeding up, your ability will HAVE to improve; your speed will HAVE to increase with time!

The reason is as you set at one speed your comfort level will increase.  To rephrase this, as you set at one speed, copying at that speed, it becomes less and less of an effort.  You will be able to stop using a pencil if you use one and start to "head copy" after awhile.

If you then listen to 20wpm you will find it necessary to put forth a bit of effort but you will be able to copy 20wpm.  If you come completely out of your "comfort zone" you will be able to copy faster than 20wpm.

Rather you realize it or not, this is the usual process of learning code!  Constantly forcing yourself to go faster than what you are comfortable with is nothing but unpleasant work and in many cases self-defeating.

Al - K8AXW



Title: RE: Sending CQ at the speed at which you want to converse -v- QRS Etiquitte.
Post by: PA0BLAH on November 09, 2012, 12:32:05 PM



I have to disagree with the thought that "If I only answered CQs sent at or below my comfort level, my speed would never improve."

This is entirely incorrect. 

Is is not so in my opinion Al.
May be when you start at 5 wpm you increase 10 12 or 15 that way, but certainly not to the sky as limit.

When you persist, I ask you what your increment was the last 5 years.

In practice you increase your speed by copying faster such that you copy about 70%. When you do that a number of days, without much advancement, you go back and it turns out that your lower speed has a higher reliability.

However the sky is not the limit, there is a saturation level that is different for different persons.

When your idea should be true, the speed that you copy reliable should increase with aging of active hams and faster when they spent a lot of time with their appliance.


Bob