Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Jim Danehy
Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.  They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference comes from numerous sources.

An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest exchange.

Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing that communication goal.

CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.

 The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station. Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only gets you so far with the goal.

I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to succeed. I use every tool I have.

Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.

Jim
W9VNE


Sent from my iPhone
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

EricJ
Sending at the speed of the receiving station is usually the best way to
improve probability of exchanging call signs.

At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or more
to get it so you haven't accomplished much in the way of speedier
communication. Also simple math.

Eric KE6US

On 11/2/2019 3:00 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:

> Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.  They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference comes from numerous sources.
>
> An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest exchange.
>
> Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing that communication goal.
>
> CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.
>
>   The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station. Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only gets you so far with the goal.
>
> I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to succeed. I use every tool I have.
>
> Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.
>
> Jim
> W9VNE
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

marvwheeler
In addition those sending at 45 wpm miss a lot of Q's because many, many
stations will not respond to them  because they can't copy their callsign.


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On
Behalf Of EricJ
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Sending at the speed of the receiving station is usually the best way to
improve probability of exchanging call signs.

At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or more to
get it so you haven't accomplished much in the way of speedier
communication. Also simple math.

Eric KE6US

On 11/2/2019 3:00 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:
> Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.
They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference
comes from numerous sources.
>
> An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest
exchange.
>
> Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing
that communication goal.
>
> CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator
sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.
>
>   The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station.
Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand
how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only
gets you so far with the goal.
>
> I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to
succeed. I use every tool I have.

>
> Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.
>
> Jim
> W9VNE
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to
> [hidden email]
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Tony Estep
In reply to this post by EricJ
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 6:44 PM EricJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or
> more...
>
===============
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that sending a call faster and more times isn't
an automatic way to improve end-to-end communication -- you could send it a
lot of times at 100 wpm and work nobody. There's a tradeoff between the
time it takes to send your call, and the probability that the other guy
gets it correct. There's an optimal point on this curve.

Most of the players in DX pileups send at a speed under 30 wpm; the DX
station tends to set the pace. After you participate in thousands of
pileups you recognize that the consistently successful DXers have a lot of
skillful strategies for getting their call through, and sending faster is
not one of them. Neither is sending your call more than twice, max.

DXpeditioners who have been on the other end will attest that there's very
little likelihood of a guy sending at 40 or above having his call copied
among the screaming, howling pile.

Tony KT0NY
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

David Gilbert
In reply to this post by Jim Danehy

I don't care what you say ... higher speed does not necessarily
translate to better communication.  In fact, as I demonstrated here* and
as countless 160m ops will attest, lower speed is typically more
intelligible under conditions of low S/N ratio:

  *   http://www.ab7e.com/weak_signal/Callsigns20-25-30-35wpm.mp3

And as others here have said, you dramatically cut down your pool of
likely respondents if you insist on operating above 45 WPM in a contest,
and if you're sending your call three times in a row in a pileup you're
just an unnecessary part of the QRM.

Dave   AB7E



On 11/2/2019 3:00 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:

> Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.  They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference comes from numerous sources.
>
> An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest exchange.
>
> Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing that communication goal.
>
> CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.
>
>   The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station. Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only gets you so far with the goal.
>
> I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to succeed. I use every tool I have.
>
> Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.
>
> Jim
> W9VNE
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Randy Heise
In reply to this post by marvwheeler
As a 20wpm Extra of advancing age, I admit I can no longer copy at 35. In fact, I will also admit that now days I begin to have trouble at around 20.

I’m not a contester, but what I’ve taken to doing is haunting the Novice bands. I answer CQ’s about 2 to 3wpm faster than they’re being sent. I do it to honor the Extras/Advanced/Generals that “Elmered” me some 55 years ago.

Try it! It’s a lot of fun.

Yeah, I know ... kinda off-topic! But this website is about building things! We can also build the next generation of CW operators.

Randy, NB7E

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 2, 2019, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> In addition those sending at 45 wpm miss a lot of Q's because many, many
> stations will not respond to them  because they can't copy their callsign.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On
> Behalf Of EricJ
> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:43 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION
>
> Sending at the speed of the receiving station is usually the best way to
> improve probability of exchanging call signs.
>
> At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or more to
> get it so you haven't accomplished much in the way of speedier
> communication. Also simple math.
>
> Eric KE6US
>
>> On 11/2/2019 3:00 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:
>> Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.
> They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference
> comes from numerous sources.
>>
>> An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest
> exchange.
>>
>> Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing
> that communication goal.
>>
>> CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator
> sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.
>>
>>  The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station.
> Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand
> how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only
> gets you so far with the goal.
>>
>> I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to
> succeed. I use every tool I have.
>>
>> Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.
>>
>> Jim
>> W9VNE
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
>> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to
>> [hidden email]
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
> delivered to [hidden email]
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Bob McGraw - K4TAX
It is wise to listen to CW stations across the band and determine what
speed they are running.  Then operate at the speed that MOST of the
stations are using.  This will get the MOST responses.

I used the trial version of CW Skimmer for this purpose recently.    I
have other software that will do the same.   I find MOST stations are
running 20 to 25 WPM with fewer below and a few above that.   Of course
you will always find the 40WPM+ stations and a few at 10 WPM.  Those are
the exceptions.   The average speed is where the MOST contacts will be
made.

73

Bob, K4TAX

On 11/2/2019 9:50 PM, Randy Heise wrote:

> As a 20wpm Extra of advancing age, I admit I can no longer copy at 35. In fact, I will also admit that now days I begin to have trouble at around 20.
>
> I’m not a contester, but what I’ve taken to doing is haunting the Novice bands. I answer CQ’s about 2 to 3wpm faster than they’re being sent. I do it to honor the Extras/Advanced/Generals that “Elmered” me some 55 years ago.
>
> Try it! It’s a lot of fun.
>
> Yeah, I know ... kinda off-topic! But this website is about building things! We can also build the next generation of CW operators.
>
> Randy, NB7E
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 2, 2019, at 5:37 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> In addition those sending at 45 wpm miss a lot of Q's because many, many
>> stations will not respond to them  because they can't copy their callsign.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On
>> Behalf Of EricJ
>> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:43 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION
>>
>> Sending at the speed of the receiving station is usually the best way to
>> improve probability of exchanging call signs.
>>
>> At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or more to
>> get it so you haven't accomplished much in the way of speedier
>> communication. Also simple math.
>>
>> Eric KE6US
>>
>>> On 11/2/2019 3:00 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:
>>> Some prefer the challenge of isolating a CW signal in order to decode it.
>> They use filtering. Eliminating interference is difficult. Interference
>> comes from numerous sources.
>>> An exchange of call signs is the desired result in a pile up or contest
>> exchange.
>>> Sending at a lower speed does not improve the probability of accomplishing
>> that communication goal.
>>> CW speed is a critical part of the communication equation. An operator
>> sending at 15 wpm has 1/3 the rate of success than one who sends at 45 wpm.
>>>   The later sends his call 3 times to only one for the slower station.
>> Simple math. It might sound like bragging. A thinking person will understand
>> how critical speed is to a CW operator. Some rely upon filtering. That only
>> gets you so far with the goal.
>>> I like the improved success that comes adding speed. Bragging ? I like to
>> succeed. I use every tool I have.
>>> Just my way of competing. Some can do it better than others.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> W9VNE
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
>>> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
>> delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Analysis of a CW COMMUNICATION

Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP
In reply to this post by Tony Estep
I participate in in the weekly mini-contests sponsored by CWOps, called CWTs. I generally operate in the 1 hour session at 0300 UTC. At that time, most of my contacts will be in North America. Naturally my signal will be weaker there than most of the competition, so I mostly search and pounce. I have found that requests for repeats or miscopies of my call (which is different from what most of the operators are primed to expect) increase rapidly when I call at more than about 27 wpm.
Just a data point.

Victor 4X6GP

> On 3 Nov 2019, at 3:20, Tony Estep <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 6:44 PM EricJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> ...At 45 wpm, most ham ops need you to send your call three times or
>> more...
>>
> ===============
> Yeah, it's pretty obvious that sending a call faster and more times isn't
> an automatic way to improve end-to-end communication -- you could send it a
> lot of times at 100 wpm and work nobody. There's a tradeoff between the
> time it takes to send your call, and the probability that the other guy
> gets it correct. There's an optimal point on this curve.
>
> Most of the players in DX pileups send at a speed under 30 wpm; the DX
> station tends to set the pace. After you participate in thousands of
> pileups you recognize that the consistently successful DXers have a lot of
> skillful strategies for getting their call through, and sending faster is
> not one of them. Neither is sending your call more than twice, max.
>
> DXpeditioners who have been on the other end will attest that there's very
> little likelihood of a guy sending at 40 or above having his call copied
> among the screaming, howling pile.
>
> Tony KT0NY
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]