N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



"Mike" == Mike Coslo writes:

Mike With the likely demise of Morse code testing, is there any
Mike reason to have contests give double the points for Morse code
Mike contacts?

Jack How is the presence or absence of Morse code testing related to
Jack the point multiplier for Morse code contacts? They're
Jack orthogonal, as far as I can tell.

Mike I was always told that the increased points offered was an
Mike encouragement to work CW.

That doesn't really answer the question. A Technician can send CW on
certain HF bands, even without a higher-class license-holder present.
A ham with any other license can work phone contacts. Therefore,
whether or not an amateur has passed a Morse code test has nothing to
do with woether or not they can use Morse code. Even if the
multiplier is to provide encouragement to use Morse code, it still
doesn't have anything to do with whether or not hams are tested.


That's certainly true. But how many non-code-tested hams do you think
are actually making CW contacts of Field Day?


hmmm, not my quote.

Now, if you're going to assert that the potential end to Morse code
testing will eventually cause hams to stop learning and/or using Morse
code, and that therefore the multiplier is akin to the "marriage
penalty" [1], well, I'm not sure that's true. If it is, NCI should be
raising holy hell about the pro-code conspiracy behind all these
contests, right?

[...]

Mike I've seen a number of cases where a phone operator has worked
Mike hard and logged a lot of QSO's, only to be beaten by a CW op
Mike with little more than half that number.

Jack And how hard did that CW op work?

Mike I doubt twice as hard as the Phone person.


It's not just about how "hard" something is.

NO doubt about that. My CW QSO's would be worth about 50 points if
learning effort was included!

You could measure it yourself, you know. Work two similar contests
(say, two of the QSO parties coming up soon). Operate solely in phone
for the first contest. Score your points and keep track of your
experience with notes or something. Operate solely in CW for the
second contest. Do the same sort of scoring and note-taking. Report
back to the group with your personal experience.


Not necessarily a good comparison. Conditions during one weekend may
be better, for example.

When I know the code, I'll do the same thing, if only to satisfy my
own curiosity.

Mike - Mike KB3EIA -

Jack.


Actually Jack, that would not be quite a fair measurement. The CW op has
put in many hours of practicing and participating in contests to get his/her
speed up to a really useful contest level. Although the phone op has also
put in hours participating in contests to get his/her abilities honed to
contest level, it is far fewer hours than the CW op to get to the top levels
of ability. So the double points, at least to me, also acknowledges the
longer preparatory stage that it takes to get good at it.


That all depends on the person. Some folks pick up contest operating
(in any mode) pretty quickly, while for others it's a real strain.

It's not called "radiosport" for nothing!

hmmmm, I have to disagree somewhat.

This is kind of putting CW on a pedestal.


Data modes get the same scoring on FD, and count as a separate "band".

Let's take FD as an example.

I spend a lot of time planning, putting up antennas and tents and hours
and hours of operating. Some of our CW ops help in this effort also,
including the hardest working one out of the bunch. But some others
simply show up and work a few hours, then go home.


Been there, done that - the hard work, that is.

The point is, if you give extra points because of effort involved, then
you have to decide what constitutes "effort".


It's not about "effort" so much as it's about "rewarding a desired
activity". That's why there are power level multipliers, all sorts of
bonus point thingies, and different classes of operation.

The spectrum efficiency of CW and data modes makes them worthy of the
moide multipliers.

In the contests in which I've participated, I have noticed that the best CW
ops can usually run more stations in less time because of the need for fewer
repeats than the best phone ops.


So much for Morse being "slow" and "error prone"...

I have been amazed how quickly they can run. Humbled in fact. Adn I
think that kind of flies in the face of those that say that CW is slower
to work in a contest than SSB.


The point is not how many words are transmitted but how fast the
message gets across. The need for phonetics and repeats on 'phone
slows things, but the big slower-downer is the fact that if the other
op is using paper logs (still very common on FD) you can't go faster
than he/she can write. Which is normally less than 30 wpm.


On the other hand, less experienced people
can run phone contacts faster than CW contacts.

If you compare the person to them self, that is true.


I'm not sure what that is intended to mean.


In my own contesting experience, my all time high was 310 contacts and it
was a CW contest. My second best was down around 150 contacts and it was a
voice contest. I'm running only 100 watts and wire antennas. I found it
much easier to break through pileups and bad conditions on CW. But it took
time to learn CW.


My best on Field Day was 629 contacts - all CW. Almost all S&P, too.
Plus 11 on 2 meter FM simplex during breaks. That was in 1B-1
category, which meant I had to do everyhting myself - setup, takedown,
etc. Also copied the W1AW message and sent a message report to the SM
(via CW, of course) for the bonus points. The W1AW message was copied
Saturday morning but the SM message was sent during FD.

All of this was with 100 W and wire antennas. It is by no means top
performance - really good ops with somewhat better setups (no beams or
high power, though) have done much better.

But it took some time to learn just how to put a station together too.

I'll defend testing CW, and I've been willing to put in a lot of effort
to take my CW abilities to the "he stinks" level. But it sure seems like
an unnatural advantage to have double points.


I think the mode bonus is more than justified by the spectrum
efficiency.

You are the only person I've heard of using BW as a justification. Not
that it isn't some kind of justification, but it is unusual.

I remember when there was no mode bonus on FD. The result was that FD
was 'phone heavy and CW/data light.

--

Perhaps someone can explain a certain operating habit I hear on Field
Day - but only one 'phone:

I hear most FD 'phone ops repeating the *received* exchange. That is,
you'll hear:

"November Two Echo Yankee from November Three Kilo Zed, roger your One
Bravo Eastern Pennsylvania, OK on your 1B EPA, please copy my three
alfa ...."

Why do so many deem it necessary to tell me what I just told them?
Heck, I know what class and section I'm in!

Here is my take on why that happens. Most contacts I make ask QSL? So I
simply repeat it back. Then I give them my exchange. I also say "please"
copy (exchange) If I'm the person initiating the QSO, I generally don't.
I actually heard a ham chewing another one out for saying Please copy
(exchange)in the VAQSO party. Told him saying "please" made him sound
like an idiot. I was next to QSO with him, and gave him the prettiest,
drawn out pulleeeezze he ever heard.


On CW, the single letter "R" does the job, and some ops don't even
bother with the R - they send their exchange as an indication that
they got yours. Or they send "TU" - (thank you) which does the job of
"roger" and "73" both.

That brings up a mini-beef I've had with CW ops. At one time, I was
trying to copy on the air operations. It wasn't until I found that
almost everything was abbreviated that I realized I was often copying
correctly. It was like a code within a code.

- Mike KB3EIA -