[digitalradio] Re; CQ CH
I've just been reading all the recently posted comments and thinking, What the devil is CQ CH ? I then find that this is an abbreviation for County Hunting in the US. This leads me on to thinking, why, as PSK is a visual communication, operators cannot put in their transmitted message CQ County Hunters. This also applies to most European Special Event Stations, who for some reason refuse to give their names, locations and IARU locators, even when asked. I have always been under the impression that a radio amateur should give this basic information to a contact, as this is a requirement of being a radio amateur. Regards, Mel G0GQK IO82TS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Joe Serocki Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout!
[digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Joe Serocki Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout! One has to listen on 14.195 KHZ in Europe. It is disheartening!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend to have fewer disagreements is that it is not as easy to have the quicker back and forth ability you have on voice modes. You also don't get the cues of the other persons voice timbre and nuances. What is a strong viewpoint to some is normal to others, and we see that on any internet group as well. Only it can be even worse, because even though the slower speeds on radio do allow for faster back and forth exchanges. I had that last night with a ham who was very frustrated with 141A in Multipsk because we could not connect in FAE. I was surprised how angry he got in a matter of minutes of frustration. With analog voice, you can talk back and forth many times faster than you can on keyboard or CW modes and you accelerate interaction. Most people are probably similar to my speed of around 40 wpm or so for keyboarding which is a fraction of the speed of talking. Also, most CW and digital contacts tend to be more superficial and short. And another thing about digital is that you can not have several stations transmitting on the same station at the same time like you can with analog voice and CW. So you don't get the snide comments from others like you will get on voice and even CW. I was listening to the tests the other day from the hams using WinDRM and it was similar to AM phone with the longer transmissions of a roundtable discussion. Of course with weaker stations, you get nothing:( 73, Rick, KV9U Simon Brown wrote: I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - *From:* Joe Serocki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout!
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I really don't want to start a CW vs anything war here - really I DON'T.. but you are dead wrong on CW - it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK - that is what is was invented for.Tnx es c u l om es 73 From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 AM To: =SMTP:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend to have fewer disagreements is that it is not as easy to have the quicker back and forth ability you have on voice modes. You also don't get the cues of the other persons voice timbre and nuances. What is a strong viewpoint to some is normal to others, and we see that on any internet group as well. Only it can be even worse, because even though the slower speeds on radio do allow for faster back and forth exchanges. I had that last night with a ham who was very frustrated with 141A in Multipsk because we could not connect in FAE. I was surprised how angry he got in a matter of minutes of frustration. With analog voice, you can talk back and forth many times faster than you can on keyboard or CW modes and you accelerate interaction. Most people are probably similar to my speed of around 40 wpm or so for keyboarding which is a fraction of the speed of talking. Also, most CW and digital contacts tend to be more superficial and short. And another thing about digital is that you can not have several stations transmitting on the same station at the same time like you can with analog voice and CW. So you don't get the snide comments from others like you will get on voice and even CW. I was listening to the tests the other day from the hams using WinDRM and it was similar to AM phone with the longer transmissions of a roundtable discussion. Of course with weaker stations, you get nothing:( 73, Rick, KV9U Simon Brown wrote: I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - *From:* Joe Serocki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:joeserocki%40gmail.com Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout!
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Horse Feathers. From 50 years of experience - military and civilian At 07:01 AM 3/21/2007, you wrote: I really dont want to start a CW vs anything war here really I DONT.. but you are dead wrong on CW it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK that is what is was invented for.Tnx es c u l om es 73 From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 AM To: =SMTP:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend to have fewer disagreements is that it is not as easy to have the quicker back and forth ability you have on voice modes. You also don't get the cues of the other persons voice timbre and nuances. What is a strong viewpoint to some is normal to others, and we see that on any internet group as well. Only it can be even worse, because even though the slower speeds on radio do allow for faster back and forth exchanges. I had that last night with a ham who was very frustrated with 141A in Multipsk because we could not connect in FAE. I was surprised how angry he got in a matter of minutes of frustration. With analog voice, you can talk back and forth many times faster than you can on keyboard or CW modes and you accelerate interaction. Most people are probably similar to my speed of around 40 wpm or so for keyboarding which is a fraction of the speed of talking. Also, most CW and digital contacts tend to be more superficial and short. And another thing about digital is that you can not have several stations transmitting on the same station at the same time like you can with analog voice and CW. So you don't get the snide comments from others like you will get on voice and even CW. I was listening to the tests the other day from the hams using WinDRM and it was similar to AM phone with the longer transmissions of a roundtable discussion. Of course with weaker stations, you get nothing:( 73, Rick, KV9U Simon Brown wrote: I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - *From:* Joe Serocki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout!
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
You haven't see me on CW .. I can talk a whole bunch faster on phone --- Les Warriner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Horse Feathers. From 50 years of experience - military and civilian At 07:01 AM 3/21/2007, you wrote: I really dont want to start a CW vs anything war here really I DONT.. but you are dead wrong on CW it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK that is what is was invented for.Tnx es c u l om es 73 Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Now remember we now have some that can't speak CW at all. At 09:01 AM 3/21/2007, you wrote: I really dont want to start a CW vs anything war here really I DONT.. but you are dead wrong on CW it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK that is what is was invented for.Tnx es c u l om es 73
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds. I do not feel comfortable on the main traffic nets (20 to 35 wpm) although I did do a year or two as NCS for a Slow Speed Net (10-15 wpm) back in the early 1980's. CW has some value for message traffic, since it can be very efficiently run, if you know the ropes. But there are going to be very few new hams who will ever get up to that level and commitment. From what I can tell, our CW traffic nets are not doing well. And you don't hear that much QRQ stuff either, except maybe some OT's chatting back and forth. Because it is possible to have excellent CW QSK (currently Ten Tec Argonaut V, and formerly an old Omni C and Pegasus owner), you don't tend to double with another ham very often. I was not going to mention it in my last post, but the truth is that this capability also lets the policemen get on and harass others over the top of CW DXing with LID comments. Can't really do that as easily with digital modes:) 73, Rick, KV9U Radiotronic Gizmo wrote: I really don’t want to start a CW vs anything war here – really I DON’T.. but you are dead wrong on CW – it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK – that is what is was invented for. Tnx es c u l om es 73 Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds. Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
99%? That works out to 150 hams per state. Perhaps that number is an exaggeration, because when I listen on the contest weekends, it sure sounds like a lot more than that. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:27 am, bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Well, my point was that you can't include cw as a digital mode - using q sigs and shorthand you can knock out 10 qsos in the time it takes one on sideband. You can whistle it, tap it on a table, use a flashlight, tap two wires together, etc. You don't need a friggin computer to communicate at high speed. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bruce mallon Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds. __ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Guys. I dont have the figures here, but I would bet many more than 1 percent continue to use the code. You just have to listen to one contest weekend to hear the numbers that do. Also, a much larger percentage than that had to pass the code tests to get a license. Dont forget that EVERYONE that was on HF prior to black Monday had to pass a code test, whether they used it or not. As to QRQ, there is a small percentage using it, and that might make the 1 percent of CW users who do so. As an aside, I was calling CQ DX last night on 160 , at about 20 wpm, and had a very slow stateside CW responder come back to me. I thought it was amusing, his last name is Farnsworth. How about some of you guys getting down on 160 at night and make some digitial contacts. I hear very few, and most of them are RTTY. Man - its just made for PSK. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds. Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 3/21/2007 7:52 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
] Re: CQ CH? Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . I bet 100% of us took theory and 99% don't use it. There is nothing wrong with those who are GOOD at it and enjoy it. It is neat and comes in handy when figuring out the length of a dipole. Many think it is useless old stuff anymore... 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Bruce and group members, I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even approach that point from what I have seen. One of the big equalizers is the use of the short forms on CW. Did you ever notice that on digital modes, most of us type in the full text and do not tend to use the short forms (fer, es, ?, wid, tt, etc.) which are used quite a bit by savvy operators? The one difference (just like digital keyboarding) is when the CW operator is using a keyboard rather than a keyer. It seems that there is more of a tendency to spell it out in full. With the keyboard (perfectly sent code) I sometimes will use a computer to follow along. You do have a fairly substantial number of CW contesters, although the exchanges are fairly standardized and it may be a bit different from a longer chat. My normal code speed is very comfortable around 15 to 18 wpm, but I consider it to be fairly slow code. I will QRS though for anyone. If I try and get up around 25, I start missing too many characters as I have never learned to copy in my head and see the letters spell the words. There are a few exceptions with common words and certain syllables such as the ing which stands out for me. Isn't it just fantastic that most rigs now come with built-in keyers? That is so slick compared to having YAB (Yet Another Box) to connect up between the key paddle and the rig:) I even figure out a way to connect my Bencher paddle to either my Ten Tec Argonaut V or my ICOM rig with one cable for the ICOM, and an 1/8 stereo to 1/4 stereo female jack for the Argo, and then it coincidentally works with a straight key with the Argo without any wiring changes:) 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I was on 160 last night working a ham about 35 miles away. We meet at 7 pm local time on Tuesday evening for testing of various digital modes under different condx. had the big blowout of my XP computer and got the new Vista computer that temporarily did not run any digital software (thankfully, it can run Multipsk to the CI-V on my ICOM but right now it may be the only software that can do this). When I got back on he asked why I could not have to defaulted to the other digital mode ... CW. I sometimes will call CQ from setting my dial frequency at 1808 but it is rare to have any other stations come back. Usually will try with PSK31 at first even though it may not be the best when the QRN gets bad. I want to see how DEX (Domino EX), especially DEX/FEC works under those condx. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: Guys. I dont have the figures here, but I would bet many more than 1 percent continue to use the code. You just have to listen to one contest weekend to hear the numbers that do. Also, a much larger percentage than that had to pass the code tests to get a license. Dont forget that EVERYONE that was on HF prior to black Monday had to pass a code test, whether they used it or not. As to QRQ, there is a small percentage using it, and that might make the 1 percent of CW users who do so. As an aside, I was calling CQ DX last night on 160 , at about 20 wpm, and had a very slow stateside CW responder come back to me. I thought it was amusing, his last name is Farnsworth. How about some of you guys getting down on 160 at night and make some digitial contacts. I hear very few, and most of them are RTTY. Man - its just made for PSK. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each .
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I agree - you can spot the keyboarders on cw immediately - they spell everything out like they were typing into a computer. Boring - if you are keyboarding on cw and your QSO disappears - its cause you chased him off. I am not going to listen to I LIVE OVER IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - THE WEATHER HERE IS OK BUT A LITTLE ON THE COLD SIDE. WHAT KIND OF RIG ARE YOU USING? When a QTH Chicago - wx cold - rig hr knwd - how? K Would do it. (in about 1/10th the time). From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? Bruce and group members, I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even approach that point from what I have seen. One of the big equalizers is the use of the short forms on CW. Did you ever notice that on digital modes, most of us type in the full text and do not tend to use the short forms (fer, es, ?, wid, tt, etc.) which are used quite a bit by savvy operators? The one difference (just like digital keyboarding) is when the CW operator is using a keyboard rather than a keyer. It seems that there is more of a tendency to spell it out in full. With the keyboard (perfectly sent code) I sometimes will use a computer to follow along. You do have a fairly substantial number of CW contesters, although the exchanges are fairly standardized and it may be a bit different from a longer chat. My normal code speed is very comfortable around 15 to 18 wpm, but I consider it to be fairly slow code. I will QRS though for anyone. If I try and get up around 25, I start missing too many characters as I have never learned to copy in my head and see the letters spell the words. There are a few exceptions with common words and certain syllables such as the ing which stands out for me. Isn't it just fantastic that most rigs now come with built-in keyers? That is so slick compared to having YAB (Yet Another Box) to connect up between the key paddle and the rig:) I even figure out a way to connect my Bencher paddle to either my Ten Tec Argonaut V or my ICOM rig with one cable for the ICOM, and an 1/8 stereo to 1/4 stereo female jack for the Argo, and then it coincidentally works with a straight key with the Argo without any wiring changes:) 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
And if you are describing an incident where a tornado has touched down you can certainly make sure that the people in the emergency operations center know exactly what you are talking - sorry keying - about and the location abbreviated. We learned the hard way in Korea and Viet Nam spell it out - even on CW and it takes forever to do so. Mistakes cost lives in many situations. At 04:51 PM 3/21/2007, you wrote: I agree you can spot the keyboarders on cw immediately they spell everything out like they were typing into a computer. Boring if you are keyboarding on cw and your QSO disappears its cause you chased him off. I am not going to listen to I LIVE OVER IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO THE WEATHER HERE IS OK BUT A LITTLE ON THE COLD SIDE. WHAT KIND OF RIG ARE YOU USING? When a QTH Chicago wx cold rig hr knwd how? K Would do it. (in about 1/10th the time). From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? Bruce and group members, I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even approach that point from what I have seen. One of the big equalizers is the use of the short forms on CW. Did you ever notice that on digital modes, most of us type in the full text and do not tend to use the short forms (fer, es, ?, wid, tt, etc.) which are used quite a bit by savvy operators? The one difference (just like digital keyboarding) is when the CW operator is using a keyboard rather than a keyer. It seems that there is more of a tendency to spell it out in full. With the keyboard (perfectly sent code) I sometimes will use a computer to follow along. You do have a fairly substantial number of CW contesters, although the exchanges are fairly standardized and it may be a bit different from a longer chat. My normal code speed is very comfortable around 15 to 18 wpm, but I consider it to be fairly slow code. I will QRS though for anyone. If I try and get up around 25, I start missing too many characters as I have never learned to copy in my head and see the letters spell the words. There are a few exceptions with common words and certain syllables such as the ing which stands out for me. Isn't it just fantastic that most rigs now come with built-in keyers? That is so slick compared to having YAB (Yet Another Box) to connect up between the key paddle and the rig:) I even figure out a way to connect my Bencher paddle to either my Ten Tec Argonaut V or my ICOM rig with one cable for the ICOM, and an 1/8 stereo to 1/4 stereo female jack for the Argo, and then it coincidentally works with a straight key with the Argo without any wiring changes:) 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Roger roger and QSL - but we were talking about ham radio QSOs From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Les Warriner Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? And if you are describing an incident where a tornado has touched down you can certainly make sure that the people in the emergency operations center know exactly what you are talking - sorry keying - about and the location abbreviated. We learned the hard way in Korea and Viet Nam spell it out - even on CW and it takes forever to do so. Mistakes cost lives in many situations. At 04:51 PM 3/21/2007, you wrote: I agree - you can spot the keyboarders on cw immediately - they spell everything out like they were typing into a computer. Boring - if you are keyboarding on cw and your QSO disappears - its cause you chased him off. I am not going to listen to I LIVE OVER IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - THE WEATHER HERE IS OK BUT A LITTLE ON THE COLD SIDE. WHAT KIND OF RIG ARE YOU USING? When a QTH Chicago - wx cold - rig hr knwd - how? K Would do it. (in about 1/10th the time). From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kv9u Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH? Bruce and group members, I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even approach that point from what I have seen. One of the big equalizers is the use of the short forms on CW. Did you ever notice that on digital modes, most of us type in the full text and do not tend to use the short forms (fer, es, ?, wid, tt, etc.) which are used quite a bit by savvy operators? The one difference (just like digital keyboarding) is when the CW operator is using a keyboard rather than a keyer. It seems that there is more of a tendency to spell it out in full. With the keyboard (perfectly sent code) I sometimes will use a computer to follow along. You do have a fairly substantial number of CW contesters, although the exchanges are fairly standardized and it may be a bit different from a longer chat. My normal code speed is very comfortable around 15 to 18 wpm, but I consider it to be fairly slow code. I will QRS though for anyone. If I try and get up around 25, I start missing too many characters as I have never learned to copy in my head and see the letters spell the words. There are a few exceptions with common words and certain syllables such as the ing which stands out for me. Isn't it just fantastic that most rigs now come with built-in keyers? That is so slick compared to having YAB (Yet Another Box) to connect up between the key paddle and the rig:) I even figure out a way to connect my Bencher paddle to either my Ten Tec Argonaut V or my ICOM rig with one cable for the ICOM, and an 1/8 stereo to 1/4 stereo female jack for the Argo, and then it coincidentally works with a straight key with the Argo without any wiring changes:) 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Let's change the subject or get back to the subject.
[digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
CQ County Hunters. Dave wrote: What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7, but CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Here Here! Even back in the day when I ran RTTY on a HW-101 (really) people on digital modes were more polite, less antagonistic, and in my humble opinion, had better operating practices. CW came second, and phone a LONG third. Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout! Sorry to go off, but I firmly believe that the digital hams are much, much nicer on an overall basis and I would prefer to QSO with them than many of the fone hams I have heard and worked. On 3/20/07, wb0m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CQ County Hunters. Dave wrote: What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7, but CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW
[digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I can do a sked :)
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Joe Serocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
{snipped}
TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode.
{end snip}
