[OT] CW speed and decoders and SS

[dave.wilburn]

What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the speed
everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with sequential
exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first to get the "feel" of
the exchange.  But it was all too fast.  

The concept of answering folks at what they sent, was few and far
between in my experience.  I heard some folks consistently sending
slower (meaning 20-25) only to be answered by much higher rates.  They
still worked them, so they were capable of higher than they were sending
(seems quite possible) or they had help.

Decoders must be useful, the K3 has one.  With the many years of being
licensed that copied that I copied in the exchange, I completely believe
that many folks are sending and copying at the higher speeds.  But I
have a hard time buying that "all" of them are.  

Are they using the MFJ decoder or the various software programs?  Is
there one that works better than the other?  I have every intention of
continuing to build my code speed, but if I am going to continue to try
to do CW contesting I need to do something to reduce the frustration
factor.  There were stations that I passed over as too fast to even
start getting the info.  Others I asked for QRS.  Most did, some didn't.

Overall it was a learning activity, I'm glad I took the time to
experience it, but frustrating because I couldn't fully participate.
--

David Wilburn
[hidden email]
K4DGW
K2 S/N 5982


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Tom Hammond-2]

Hi Dave:

The best 'decoder' is still between your ears!!!  Most (other than VERY
specialized) decoders will get really confused when they ear more than
one in-band signal... so trying to use a decoder in most CW contests
is pretty much useless.

I remember when I was starting out contesting (back in the late 50's and
very early 60's... they still run WAY ABOVE MY HEAD... but I's sit on
the frequency of someone who was "running 'em" (holding a frequency and
repeatedly calling CQ and working those who responded) and I'd copy
whatever parts of his exchange I could, one piece at a time, until I got
it all written down... and then the serial number... which I knew was
going to increment with each successive QSO, so I'd (finally) get it
picked apart and then mentally increment the last digit each time he
worked another station... I'd also mentally listen for him to send the
last digit I knew (err... thought) was to be sent next. It'd sometimes
take me several minutes to get the entire exchange, esp. in the CQ SS,
but once I got it, I'd call the station (at MY sending speed, maybe 15-
18 WPM) and no matter what speed he sent back to me, I knew I had his
info and that's he'd be (relatively) patient as I sent my info back to
him. In time (e.g. by the end of the contest) I found that my speed
was increasing with each contest in which I participated. that's why
I strongly recommend that new ops (IF they can send/RX 15 WPM or higher)
get as much contest experience under their belts as possible.

There are few better ways to get your proficiency up than doing it UNDER
FIRE!  It CAN be a bit frustrating at first, but if you stick with it,
you'll generally be gratified in the end.

Another method is to start up at the TOP END of the CW band and work your
way DOWN the band... generally more slower ops will tend to be found at
the high end of the bands, so you can start there and then work your way
down as you 1) become more comfortable with slightly higher speeds, and
2) as you work yourself out of slower ops to contact in the high end.

73,

Tom Hammond   N0SS

At 07:26 11/05/2007, David Wilburn wrote:

>What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the speed
>everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with sequential
>exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first to get the "feel" of
>the exchange.  But it was all too fast.
>
>The concept of answering folks at what they sent, was few and far
>between in my experience.  I heard some folks consistently sending
>slower (meaning 20-25) only to be answered by much higher rates.  They
>still worked them, so they were capable of higher than they were sending
>(seems quite possible) or they had help.
>
>Decoders must be useful, the K3 has one.  With the many years of being
>licensed that copied that I copied in the exchange, I completely believe
>that many folks are sending and copying at the higher speeds.  But I
>have a hard time buying that "all" of them are.
>
>Are they using the MFJ decoder or the various software programs?  Is
>there one that works better than the other?  I have every intention of
>continuing to build my code speed, but if I am going to continue to try
>to do CW contesting I need to do something to reduce the frustration
>factor.  There were stations that I passed over as too fast to even
>start getting the info.  Others I asked for QRS.  Most did, some didn't.
>
>Overall it was a learning activity, I'm glad I took the time to
>experience it, but frustrating because I couldn't fully participate.
>--
>
>David Wilburn
>[hidden email]
>K4DGW
>K2 S/N 5982
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Post to: [hidden email]
>You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Darwin, Keith]

I believe most of them are indeed copying what is being sent.  Most of
the stations I hear in a big contest are the big contesters.  They have
big money invested in big equipment and they have lots of experience and
skill.  I suspect serious CW contesters have no problems with contest
exchanges at 25-30 wpm.

The solution in the long run for you and me to get our CW speed up to 30
so we can run with the big dogs!

One suggestion in the short term is SKCC - Straight Key Century Club.
We run a monthly 2 hour contest and because it is straight key based,
the speeds are typically in the 12 - 18 wpm range.  A couple of months
ago, the theme was "go as fast as you can on a straight key".  I did and
EVERY person who answered me was slower than I was.  I ended up QRS for
every QSO.  You can get some experience in low-key contesting at a speed
where you're more comfortable.

- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.ssb.100 -
- K3 wave 3 -

-----Original Message-----

What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the speed
everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with sequential
exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first to get the "feel" of
the exchange.  But it was all too fast.  

that copied that I copied in the exchange, I completely believe that
many folks are sending and copying at the higher speeds.  But I have a
hard time buying that "all" of them are.  

David Wilburn
[hidden email]
K4DGW
K2 S/N 5982
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[M0XDF]

My experience of trying to use the MFJ with my FT-857 is that it has to be
very good, clear Morse for it to work. I'm still learning, so I'm not good
enough yet to receive correctly, let alone send. But the MFJ just shows
rubbish or doesn't understand it at all.


On 5/11/07 13:26, "David Wilburn" <[hidden email]> sent:

> Are they using the MFJ decoder or the various software programs?

--
What is the purpose of the giant sequoia tree? The purpose of the giant
sequoia tree is to provide shade for the tiny titmouse.
-Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Richard-3]

Hi David, you did not mention that you used a contest logger.  I used N1MM.
It allows entry of the exchange parts in any order.  I had to listen to
running stations several (OK, many) times to get the exchange down and
confirmed before I tried to make contact. I could get the precedence, check,
section entered, and then get the serial number and enter the first numbers
and then could concentrate on the final number or two.  N1MM made it
tolerable for me.

I worked a couple of clear, moderately fast signals, but mostly concentrated
on the slower ops.  I sent at 20 wpm, because I hear it better than 18 wpm.
I suspect most requests to me to repeat were due to conditions or QRM at the
operator's location, but did get repeat requests for my 02 check.  I'm
really at 13-15 wpm and working up.

I got nowhere in the early going, and had my best copy late at night when
things slowed down in general, and stations were more spread out.

I know lots of operators capable of running at 40+ wpm.  It is just a
language to them.  Ops who prefer high speed often seem to have trouble with
slower speeds--I think they doze off between letters <grin>.

I also know of high speed ops who send at 20 wpm for accuracy and to reduce
repeats.

I did not ask anyone to QRS.  I figure I'm slow and need to avoid
interrupting their rhythm.  If I call them and they are running at 30 wpm, I
should be able to copy them.  If they call me and I'm running, then I expect
them to call at near my speed.

73

NU6T
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of David Wilburn
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 5:27 AM
To: elecraft
Subject: [Elecraft] [OT] CW speed and decoders and SS


What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the speed
everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with sequential
exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first to get the "feel" of
the exchange.  But it was all too fast.

The concept of answering folks at what they sent, was few and far
between in my experience.  I heard some folks consistently sending
slower (meaning 20-25) only to be answered by much higher rates.  They
still worked them, so they were capable of higher than they were sending
(seems quite possible) or they had help.

Decoders must be useful, the K3 has one.  With the many years of being
licensed that copied that I copied in the exchange, I completely believe
that many folks are sending and copying at the higher speeds.  But I
have a hard time buying that "all" of them are.

Are they using the MFJ decoder or the various software programs?  Is
there one that works better than the other?  I have every intention of
continuing to build my code speed, but if I am going to continue to try
to do CW contesting I need to do something to reduce the frustration
factor.  There were stations that I passed over as too fast to even
start getting the info.  Others I asked for QRS.  Most did, some didn't.

Overall it was a learning activity, I'm glad I took the time to
experience it, but frustrating because I couldn't fully participate.
--

David Wilburn
[hidden email]
K4DGW
K2 S/N 5982


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

The best decoder is certainly not the one between *my* ears! I have
tried just about every method going to try to be able to read Morse
comfortably at 25wpm or more, with no success at all. If anything I am
getting worse with the advancing years! Although I can read most
individual characters at 25 or 30wpm I still confuse characters like V
and 4, H and 5, B and 6, 1 and J. Also, whatever the speed the
individual characters are sent, there seems a finite delay between
hearing the character and registering what it is, during which it is
as if "interrupts are disabled" and I'm not listening to the next one.

Whatever the character speed, 12 - 15wpm is the fastest my brain seems
to manage to keep up with. Consequently my whole ham life I've been
afraid to call CQ using CW in case someone comes back to me too fast
for me to read.

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf


On 11/5/07, Tom Hammond <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Dave:
>
> The best 'decoder' is still between your ears!!!
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

I've never tried the MFJ, though I was tempted to get one.

On Windows PCs, the CW decoder in MixW is pretty poor. About the best
is CWGet, as long as you manually set the threshold to above the level
of noise. However, all DSP based Morse decoders only work when you
click on the exact centre of the transmitted signal - just like
receiving PSK. Unfortunately in CW - unlike data modes - people don't
usually reply on the exact frequency you are sending on. Any AFC
function in the software is much too slow, and just as likely to lock
on to another signal entirely. So the reality is that computer
decoders are useless for contest work except in S&P mode where you can
net on to the station you want to work before you call him.

In those circumstances I have found they work really well, especially
as contest stations are usually sending well formed electronically
generated code which computer decoders prefer.

Pocket Digi running on a Windows CE hand-held (e.g. Dell Axim) makes a
very good standalone decoder. Just stand it next to the radio and it
decodes whatever it hears on its microphone.

The best computer decoder I have tried was G-PSK31 for Linux. That was
one of the reasons behind my attempt to switch to Linux for the shack.
Unfortunately after someone suggested I try FLDigi my sound card
stopped working with either of the programs and I hadn't a clue how to
fix it, so I went back to Windows.

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smfnet


On 11/5/07, David Ferrington, M0XDF <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My experience of trying to use the MFJ with my FT-857 is that it has to be
> very good, clear Morse for it to work. I'm still learning, so I'm not good
> enough yet to receive correctly, let alone send. But the MFJ just shows
> rubbish or doesn't understand it at all.
>
>
> On 5/11/07 13:26, "David Wilburn" <[hidden email]> sent:
>
> > Are they using the MFJ decoder or the various software programs?
>
> --
> What is the purpose of the giant sequoia tree? The purpose of the giant
> sequoia tree is to provide shade for the tiny titmouse.
> -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dave.wilburn]

A friend has the MFJ pocket decoder.  I have tried it.  It is not
perfect, but if you connect it to the radio instead of just audio, it
works better.  And with the filters in the K2, I can drill down to the
signals I want.  My thoughts were that most were sending electronically,
as you mentioned, which is what these decoders like.

It has taken me years to get to where I am with my copy.  I'm mainly
looking for something to help me get snippets of the exchange while I am
listening to QSO's, so I know most of the info when I return their CQ.

Would be happy to practice with you sometime Julian, I sure need the
practice.  Many have mentioned the smaller nets and contests too.  I
need to do more of those also, to build up my skills.  SS was only my
4th contest, and only my 3rd CW contest.

When I was frustrated at the beginning of the contest, I downloaded HRD
and tried to figure it out. Finally worked through all of that, to find
out that the sound card in my only windows machine is deaf.  I have a
linux box sitting there, but did not try it.
-  

David Wilburn
[hidden email]
K4DGW
K2 S/N 5982


On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:29 +0000, Julian G4ILO wrote:

> I've never tried the MFJ, though I was tempted to get one.
>
> On Windows PCs, the CW decoder in MixW is pretty poor. About the best
> is CWGet, as long as you manually set the threshold to above the level
> of noise. However, all DSP based Morse decoders only work when you
> click on the exact centre of the transmitted signal - just like
> receiving PSK. Unfortunately in CW - unlike data modes - people don't
> usually reply on the exact frequency you are sending on. Any AFC
> function in the software is much too slow, and just as likely to lock
> on to another signal entirely. So the reality is that computer
> decoders are useless for contest work except in S&P mode where you can
> net on to the station you want to work before you call him.
>
> In those circumstances I have found they work really well, especially
> as contest stations are usually sending well formed electronically
> generated code which computer decoders prefer.
>
> Pocket Digi running on a Windows CE hand-held (e.g. Dell Axim) makes a
> very good standalone decoder. Just stand it next to the radio and it
> decodes whatever it hears on its microphone.
>
> The best computer decoder I have tried was G-PSK31 for Linux. That was
> one of the reasons behind my attempt to switch to Linux for the shack.
> Unfortunately after someone suggested I try FLDigi my sound card
> stopped working with either of the programs and I hadn't a clue how to
> fix it, so I went back to Windows.
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Rairdin]

> What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the
> speed everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with
> sequential exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first
> to get the "feel" of the exchange.  But it was all too fast.  

> The concept of answering folks at what they sent, was few and far
> between in my experience.  I heard some folks consistently sending
> slower (meaning 20-25) only to be answered by much higher rates.  
> They still worked them, so they were capable of higher than they
> were sending (seems quite possible) or they had help.

I think SS almost demands computerized logging so the sequence numbers are
handled automatically. I use WriteLog and interface to the rig through a
microHam microKeyer. The nice thing about this setup is I can speed up or
slow down by turning a knob. I have trouble sending by hand above about 25
wpm but no problem turning a knob up to 40. :-)

I take pride in the fact while I call CQ at 30 wpm I crank it down to 15 if
you call me at 15. You will be able to copy my "R TU" at the end, but the
QRZ will be back up to speed. Similarly, if you're calling CQ at 35 or 40
you'll get my reply at that speed.

I've been a private pilot for about 17 years. My dad is just learning to
fly. When he and I fly together into busy airspace like O'Hare, he's always
amazed at how I handle the complex communications. The secret is that all
controllers say the same thing in the same order no matter where you go.
Once you know the pattern it's easy to understand them because you're
already anticipating it. Copying contest exchanges at 40 wpm is no
different. You know what's coming so you can anticipate it. I copy
conversational CW in the 20 wpm range (OK, maybe more like 18) but have no
problem with any speed in a contest because I know what's coming.

> Decoders must be useful, the K3 has one....
> Are they using the MFJ decoder ....

I turned on the K3 decoder for the contest and I glanced at it a couple
times when I wasn't sure I heard right. It does a much better job than the
piece of crap MFJ decoder (sorry, "piece of crap MFJ" is an oxymoron; I
shouldn've just said "piece of crap" and you would've known what I meant).

My pet peeve are the guys who send different parts of the report at
different speeds; as if sending their call at 50 wpm is going to increase
their QSO rate. I like to pause for a little longer than normal when I reply
to them just to eat up all the time they saved. Then there's the bozo who
decided not to send his call in the exchange, apparently because I already
know it. That really throws off the trick of knowing what's coming. All of a
sudden I'm getting numbers where I expect a callsign. I had to ask for his
ck and sec again, thus eating way more time then he saved on the next 100
Q's by not sending his call. And what's with the keyers that separate the
elements by nanoseconds instead of dit-widths? They sound like a solid tone.

Enough complaining. :-)


Craig
NZ0R
K3/100 #25

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dave.wilburn]

Well said, and understanding the exchange is the initial difficulty I
was having.  I couldn't find anyone going slow enough to understand how
the exchange was handled.  Many folks put NR in front of the sequential
number, which is a big help for us newbies.  About half didn't.  Some
may be looking at the time saved, or it just did not occur to them.

I replied to all CQs at 15wpm.  Some slowed down automatically, others I
asked to QRS after they returned their info at high speed, others I had
already worked out their info and just answered, and others lost what
ever time they saved, by having to answer my questions before I supplied
my side of the sequence.  So it all worked out.
-  

David Wilburn
[hidden email]
K4DGW
K2 S/N 5982


On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:51 -0600, Craig Rairdin wrote:

> > What blew me away trying to get into my third CW contest was the
> > speed everyone was running.  Additionally I had not dealt with
> > sequential exchanges before, and wanted to listen to one first
> > to get the "feel" of the exchange.  But it was all too fast.  
>
> > The concept of answering folks at what they sent, was few and far
> > between in my experience.  I heard some folks consistently sending
> > slower (meaning 20-25) only to be answered by much higher rates.  
> > They still worked them, so they were capable of higher than they
> > were sending (seems quite possible) or they had help.
>
> I think SS almost demands computerized logging so the sequence numbers are
> handled automatically. I use WriteLog and interface to the rig through a
> microHam microKeyer. The nice thing about this setup is I can speed up or
> slow down by turning a knob. I have trouble sending by hand above about 25
> wpm but no problem turning a knob up to 40. :-)
>
> I take pride in the fact while I call CQ at 30 wpm I crank it down to 15 if
> you call me at 15. You will be able to copy my "R TU" at the end, but the
> QRZ will be back up to speed. Similarly, if you're calling CQ at 35 or 40
> you'll get my reply at that speed.
>
> I've been a private pilot for about 17 years. My dad is just learning to
> fly. When he and I fly together into busy airspace like O'Hare, he's always
> amazed at how I handle the complex communications. The secret is that all
> controllers say the same thing in the same order no matter where you go.
> Once you know the pattern it's easy to understand them because you're
> already anticipating it. Copying contest exchanges at 40 wpm is no
> different. You know what's coming so you can anticipate it. I copy
> conversational CW in the 20 wpm range (OK, maybe more like 18) but have no
> problem with any speed in a contest because I know what's coming.
>
> > Decoders must be useful, the K3 has one....
> > Are they using the MFJ decoder ....
>
> I turned on the K3 decoder for the contest and I glanced at it a couple
> times when I wasn't sure I heard right. It does a much better job than the
> piece of crap MFJ decoder (sorry, "piece of crap MFJ" is an oxymoron; I
> shouldn've just said "piece of crap" and you would've known what I meant).
>
> My pet peeve are the guys who send different parts of the report at
> different speeds; as if sending their call at 50 wpm is going to increase
> their QSO rate. I like to pause for a little longer than normal when I reply
> to them just to eat up all the time they saved. Then there's the bozo who
> decided not to send his call in the exchange, apparently because I already
> know it. That really throws off the trick of knowing what's coming. All of a
> sudden I'm getting numbers where I expect a callsign. I had to ask for his
> ck and sec again, thus eating way more time then he saved on the next 100
> Q's by not sending his call. And what's with the keyers that separate the
> elements by nanoseconds instead of dit-widths? They sound like a solid tone.
>
> Enough complaining. :-)
>
>
> Craig
> NZ0R
> K3/100 #25
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

What a nice thread....spares me the crazy emails about shipping dates and how one feels about all that.....  Patience is a virtue....

Tom is right....best decoder is the REIP and LEIP.  Right Ear Input Port and Left Ear Input Port going through the fastest computer made today with the results coming out the DFP...Digital Finger Port

I did SS for years with pencil and paper....and I would get 1000 QSO or more.  There were many ways that you could keep track of the number....copy the information on to paper....and DUPE check them on another paper grid.  It was nothing for guys to run well over 1500 Q's using pencil and paper.  There were many neat tricks too....mechanical pencils...battery pencil sharpeners...etc.

Sending was by hand or if you got fancy...a memory keyer that did not have a sequential number programmed in.  You had to send the number and press the button to send the rest of the exchange.  For years, I sent it all.  Then came the Autek memory keyer....and then the CK1 and CK2 for AEA...and then came NA.

Thanks for NA.  Thanks for CT.  Thanks for all the others that came along too.

It would take me a week of working 5 hours a night to re-dupe the logs.  Computers are great.  I never want to go back...or I will just quit doing contests.

I like to contest too.  

Thanks for all the the QSO ast W0NO.  It is nice when VY1JA calls you!

Lee - K0WA

 

In our day and age it seems that Common Sense is in short supply.  If you don't have any Common Sense - get some Common Sense and use it.  If you can't find any Common Sense, ask for help from somebody who has some Common Sense.  Is Common Sense divine?
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Carl Clawson]

> Patience is a virtue....

Patience (n) A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com