Robert: I agree, but perhaps it has to do with why one needs to gain a certain proficiency.
I've been "pounding brass" as a Ham and commercial and military radiotelegraph operator since I passed my Novice license in 1952. I enjoy CW like many Hams enjoy casual SSB or FM QSOs; it's a way to carry on lengthy conversations (rag chews). Others use CW mostly for contests. The demands are different. I got my last ARRL code proficiency certificate at 35 WPM about 1970. That was copying by ear and on a mill (typewriter - computers weren't around then) a full minute of plain text with no idea of what was coming next -- such as what one encounters in a rag chew. But my rag chews are invariably 20-25 wpm or less. That's what most other operators are running and it allows me to putter around the shack while copying easily "in my head". In a contest I can follow an exchange at 40 wpm or higher because I know exactly what to expect and only need to copy the variables - number, section, etc. Perhaps for learning CW for contesting starting at the higher speed is better, possibly using "Farnsworth" spacing in which highly exaggerated spaces are left between letters at first and then slowly moving into a normal spacing. For me it was as you suggest, from slow speed and then upward, always striving to keep the proper element and word spacing. One thing I've come to expect is that when learning code "your mileage may vary" is certainly true. The "best" way for each of us is how each of us learned! 73 Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Robert G Strickland Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 7:22 PM To: Elecraft Subject: [Elecraft] [OT] increasing CW copy speed: practice slow -v- practice fast The following comments/questions focus on increasing CW copying speed, not the task of initially learning the code. That said, there may be an overlap between the two tasks. W1AW starts its CW practice speeds fast and then slows down. Presumably, as the speed get slower the mental demand lessens and copying becomes easier; then, ease of copying starts occurring at higher speeds over time/trials. >From my days studying animal learning, I remember significant research to the effect that starting a new task in the easiest form [slow CW speed] lessened/prevented errors and, by the end, resulted in quicker and more accurate learning. I tend to practice 3-letter groups at 35-40 wpm, 5-letter groups at 30-35 wpm, and 7-letter groups at 25-30 wpm [for better or worse]. This is somewhat geared to DX contesting since call signs are not "words." All that said, I'm starting to wonder if the animal study folks may have a point. How about the reverse of the above approach. For example, start with 3-letter groups at an error free speed, slowing increasing speed as long as the error rate stays under some value [5%, say]. Keep working at a given speed until the error rate is reached, then increment. Proceed in this fashion until a goal speed is reached. Then, repeat in the same fashion for longer letter groups. The same approach could be used with numbers, complete call signs, and sweepstakes type exchanges. The general idea is to minimize the error rate so that only correct neural networks are formed in the brain. These can be slowly stretched, perhaps like increasing strength in weight training and increasing range of motion after orthopedic surgery, all the time working at the edge to slowly increase capacity. This might also be applicable to increasing the speed of characters as in the Farnsworth method. I'm interested in what folks think. ...rober -- Robert G Strickland, PhD ABPH - KE2WY rc...@verizon.net.usa Syracuse, New York, USA ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
