AND those functions don't work if you have QRQ turned on. Toby K4NH
On 4/30/2014 6:58 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
Fred,
I think the answer to your question of when to turn it on has a
personal perception element to it.
We have heard from some who leave it turned on all the time, and some
Speaking of contesting and QRQ . . . one of the things I have wondered
about is what is the correlation between contest score and CW speed?
Has anyone ever noted speed and then compared to score?
There are obviously a lot of pitfalls to this - antenna, location, and
op being the main ones.
On 5/1/2014 9:15 AM, dave wrote:
But I suspect that the winners do not regularly run high speed.
N6TV won CW Sweepstakes this year using K3s at the W7RN super-station.
Bob usually steams along at 30-34 WPM.
73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft
I wonder where Dave got this idea from. I'd like to suggest it is
wishful thinking.
The contest winners clearly are superior ops and will use whatever speed
benefits them. Likely higher speeds early in the contest and lower
speeds later. Not a fixed speed throughout.
I don't know why
On 05/01/2014 09:41 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:
I wonder where Dave got this idea from. I'd like to suggest it is
wishful thinking.
On 5/1/2014 16:22, Jim Brown wrote:
On 5/1/2014 9:15 AM, dave wrote:
But I suspect that the winners do not regularly run high speed.
I agree with Dave that it can
He said that during the entire QSO neither one of them ever got the other
station's call correct. :=)
Now, that made me laugh.
-phil, K7PEH
On May 1, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Alan Bloom n...@sonic.net wrote:
On 05/01/2014 09:41 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:
I wonder where Dave got this idea from.
[End of Thread]
Folks - We are well past the max posting limit for a single topic. Let's end
this thread now.
In general, if you see a huge number of posts on a topic, especially one that
has drifted OT, do not post. While we do closely limit posting topics, we'd
like to see the majority
One edit to my post. We do not directly limit posting topics. (I left off the
not in my original posting.)
I meant to type:
While we do not closely limit posting topics, we'd like to see the majority of
the posting traffic on the Elecraft list directly Elecraft related.
(That is now
@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
He said that during the entire QSO neither one of them ever got the
other station's call correct. :=)
Now, that made me laugh.
-phil, K7PEH
On May 1, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Alan Bloom n...@sonic.net wrote
I'm by no means a QRQ CW operator, mainly I use CW for weak signal or
EME QSOs. I was barely able to successfully copy 20 WPM, to upgrade
to Extra Class. I attribute this to not having good CW capabilities
when first licensed 67 years ago, but after many, many, high
concentration, very
Excellent post.
I learned more than ten years ago from a group of guys in the Black
Hills that slowing down to about 22-25 wpm when running gets more
answers than showing off and cranking the keyer up to 35+.
These guys can all do 50+ head copy but slow it down intentionally to
attract more
I am accused by some of sending too fast in CW contests; I like fast. My
typical CQ speed in this years ARRL DX and CQWW contests was in the 35-42
wpm range. When the stations are loud, and the ops good, I stick with
40-44 WPM, but when the pile thins and there are less callers, I slow it
down.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18 -0500, Kevin Stover wrote:
Maybe if the big contest guns did the same we wouldn't have the visceral
anti-contest attitudes displayed, and get more people involved.
You're talking to one of the anti crowd. It has nothing to do with
speed. It has to do with the
Probably also very disconcerting for many of those coming from a V/UHF
background, with recently obtained HF privileges, who just want to have a
meaningful QSO.
73 de Dennis KD7CAC
Scottsdale, AZ
On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:53 AM, AG0N-3055 mcduf...@ag0n.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18
BINGO!
Jeff - KG7HDZ
Probably also very disconcerting for many of those coming from a V/UHF
background, with recently obtained HF privileges, who just want to have a
meaningful QSO.
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
Hi All,
I don't know if there is an official definition of QRQ, but 30 to 35 wpm
is pretty speedy compared to most. I can copy that, and maybe just a tad
bit faster, but not much, and don’t do it often enough anymore to be very
good at that speed. I'm not much good at trying to send at that
I have QSOed with W4BQF at 70-90 WPM (thought it's been a few years...) The
CW sounded fine, though don't know if Tom was running his K3 at the time.
Personally, I never use QSK. I find it annoying to have the noise pop in
between characters.
Regarding the anti-contesters, to each their own.
I'm with you on this, Gary. Too many contests
cluttering the bands these days; the list for one
month fills a page or more. In the past I
participated casually. Nowadays, not at all.
Phil w7ox
On 4/30/14, 5:53 AM, AG0N-3055 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18 -0500, Kevin Stover wrote:
] QRQ CW
I have QSOed with W4BQF at 70-90 WPM (thought it's been a few years...)
The
CW sounded fine, though don't know if Tom was running his K3 at the time.
Personally, I never use QSK. I find it annoying to have the noise pop in
between characters.
Regarding the anti-contesters, to each
That's what the WARC bands are for, plenty of room there! ;-)
73 de NS9I - . .. -
On 4/30/2014 7:53 AM, AG0N-3055 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18 -0500, Kevin Stover wrote:
Maybe if the big contest guns did the same we wouldn't have the visceral
anti-contest attitudes displayed, and
it's not much.
Ted, KN1CBR
--
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:07:07 +
From: Brian Alsop als...@nc.rr.com
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
Message-ID: 5360066b.7060...@nc.rr.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Wed 30 Apr DGB wrote:
That's what the WARC bands are for, plenty of room there! ;-)
Yeah, right... /sarcasm ;)
I don't do contests, so I tend to take big contest weekends as weekends
for doing something else; the contest bands will be jammed with
contesters, and the WARC bands that are
mcduf...@ag0n.net
To: Kevin Stover kevin.sto...@mediacombb.net
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18 -0500, Kevin Stover wrote:
Maybe if the big contest guns did the same we wouldn't have the visceral
, KAT500 etc and contester :)
- Original Message -
From: Harry Yingst via Elecraft elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
I have to fully agree, personally I have never seen the point of contesting
important to get it correctly.
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke, TDXS DX Chairman
K5EWJ Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart
From: Charlie T, K3ICH pin...@erols.com
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
I
The made up radio jargon which bothers me the most is over and out.
Which do you mean: over or out? They mean very different things and
CANNOT be used simultaneously. However, few TV writers have any
experience at comms.
73,
Kevin. KD5ONS
On 4/30/2014 9:58 AM, WILLIS COOKE
I have my own definition of QRQ. It is anything faster than I can copy
at any given time.
73,
Jim - W4BQP
K2 #2268, KX3 #2857
Licensed since 1953
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help:
: Barry
w...@comcast.net
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
I have QSOed with W4BQF at 70-90 WPM (thought
it's been a few years...) The
CW sounded fine, though don't know if Tom was
running his K3 at the time.
Personally, I never
@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
I have my own definition of QRQ. It is anything faster than I can copy at
any given time.
73,
Jim - W4BQP
K2 #2268, KX3 #2857
Licensed since 1953
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http
And I have never seen the point of JT-anything or indeed any digital
mode except CW. But I understand that ham radio is many things to many
people, and think we should respect that.
On 4/30/2014 9:18 AM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
I have to fully agree, personally I have never seen the
TV radio jargon also has it as six two and even, over and out (Dick
Tracy maybe?)
K3GGN
~~~
On 4/30/2014 12:10 PM, Kevin wrote:
The made up radio jargon which bothers me the most is over and
out. Which do you mean: over or out? They mean very different
things and CANNOT be used
The phrase Over and Out was a key part of the brief training lessons for the
young female scientist near the beginning of the movie Them!. She was being
taught proper protocol of using the radio while searching for
giant ants in a helicopter.
K7PEH
On Apr 30, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Dean Jeutter
I think we should all keep this in mind in case we encounter giant ants
while operating. Possibly on Field Day?
On 4/30/2014 2:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
The phrase Over and Out was a key part of the brief training
lessons for the young female scientist near the beginning of the
movie Them!.
On 4/30/2014 5:30 PM, Vic Rosenthal K2VCO wrote:
I think we should all keep this in mind in case we encounter giant
ants while operating. Possibly on Field Day?
You guys use a helicopter for field day? Cool! ;)
73, Ross N4RP
On 4/30/2014 2:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
The phrase Over and Out
On 4/30/2014 11:43 AM, Chester Alderman wrote:
The International Q signal for QRQ is Shall I send faster? and does not
mention any specific speed.
Technically, the answer form of QRQ is QRQ nn where nn is a desired
speed in WPM.
All this QRQ stuff has me curious now. At what sending speed
Fred,
I think the answer to your question of when to turn it on has a personal
perception element to it.
We have heard from some who leave it turned on all the time, and some
others have volunteered that it improves the keying above 35 wpm while
others have said above 30.
As I recall, QRQ
On 4/30/2014 12:10 PM, Kevin wrote:
The made up radio jargon which bothers me the most is over and
out. Which do you mean: over or out? They mean very different
things and CANNOT be used simultaneously.
They certainly can. Over means turning it back to you for your
reply. Out means No
Agreed, this is correct usage. It is shorthand for OVER to you and OUT after
your transmission, which saves another transmission just for ID, out.
You might hear this at a busy harbor, where control is working with many
commercial ships and the operators are comfortable with it. It allows
During a MARS net the NCS says out to a check in when they are done
talking to that check in . Then they immediately continue with the next
QNI. Out means they are done talking to that person only and for that
instant only. It does not mean that check in is allowed to leave the
net. Over
On 4/30/2014 6:35 AM, Barry wrote:
Regarding the anti-contesters, to each their own. What grates on my nerves
is hearing the newer hams start every transmission on 2m FM with Copy
that, the VHF version of please copy... :-)
In traffic handling, even on VHF, Please copy still means please
: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:49:18 -0500, Kevin Stover wrote:
Maybe if the big contest guns did the same we wouldn't have the visceral
anti-contest attitudes displayed, and get more people involved.
You're talking to one of the anti
Here is my source for over and out procedures as well as definitions
of same.
http://www.navymars.org/ntp8/NTP%208%20D%20Final.pdf
Page 7-1 is the beginning of the radiotelephone procedures.
My initial comment about over and out was describing military
procedure not whatever flavor of the
Speaking of jargon, my pet peeve: using 73’s or 88’s instead of 73 or 88.
On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Phil Hystad phys...@mac.com wrote:
The phrase Over and Out was a key part of the brief training lessons for
the young female scientist near the beginning of the movie Them!. She was
There was a thread on QRQ CW here. Also a query about does anybody send
QRQ CW.
For 2013 CQ WW contest N6TV did an analysis.
The answer was 30+ WPM average.
The top speeds were in excess of 50 WPM!
See: http://cqww.com/blog/?p=302
With all the K3's being used by contesters, it doesn't appear
Yes agreed, there are QRQ Ops out there but a tiny minority reading in
excess of 50 WPM head copy, but keyboard sending of course.
Yes In CW contesting I agree the average is probably 30 WPM but above this
speed get ready for the inevitable Agn, Agn, my No. etc. Wasted time and
effort.
As for
For 2013 CQ WW contest N6TV did an analysis.
The answer was 30+ WPM average.
The top speeds were in excess of 50 WPM!
So are you saying 30wpm is now called QRQ? When did it creep that low? I
suppose it is a victim of the lack of CW requirement or something like that.
Gary
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:17 PM
To: Brian Alsop
Cc: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
Yes agreed, there are QRQ Ops out there but a tiny minority reading in
excess of 50 WPM head copy, but keyboard sending of course.
Yes In CW contesting I agree the average is probably 30 WPM
I can copy 50 WPM on a good day, but when I encounter ops running higher
speeds, or if the ol' synapses are dulled by a glass of vino, I eavesdrop using
the built-in text decoder (K3 and KX3). I find such signals on 40 m during the
day, usually. I think these ops are using keyboards, more often
Ah, Wayne, but can you keep up with the text on
the LCD after that second glass? :-)
Need more lines! Feature to add to the P3?
73 Phil w7ox
On 4/29/14, 4:43 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
I can copy 50 WPM on a good day, but when I encounter ops running higher
speeds, or if the ol' synapses are
@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
I can copy 50 WPM on a good day, but when I encounter ops running higher
speeds, or if the ol' synapses are dulled by a glass of vino, I eavesdrop
using the built-in text decoder (K3 and KX3). I find such signals on 40 m
during the day, usually. I think
Not at all. There were a number of posters here who simply could not
believe anybody could copy 30 WPM.
Really? :o(
I thought it would be interesting to point out that several 1000
contesters consider 30 WPM to a routine speed.
Agree.
Of course to a no-coder, many Generals and Extras
Callsign Gary?
It's in the address! Also in the sig when I reply normally, which I didn't do
that time.
Gary
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post:
PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
Not at all. There were a number of posters here who simply could not
believe anybody could copy 30 WPM.
Really? :o(
I thought it would be interesting to point out that several 1000
contesters consider 30 WPM to a routine speed.
Agree.
Of course
INT QRQ [also QRQ?]: Shall I send faster?
QRQ nn: Send faster, nn WPM
We hams nounify and verbify International Q-Signals all the time, and
QRQ in casual conversation means someone who sends and receives Morse at
rates generally higher than the normal proletariat on the CW bands and
in
54 matches
Mail list logo
