"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jack Twilley" wrote

If it is, NCI should be raising holy hell about the
pro-code conspiracy behind all these
contests, right?

One NCI Director calls contests "electronic splat ball".
Actually, I kinda like that description. One of my grandsons
asked about contesting, and I used that metaphor. Now he wants
to multi-op with me in this years SS.

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.

I regularly work both weekends of SS (CW one weekend, Phone two
weeks later). Both are scored the same way, each two-way contact
counts for 2 points (a message sent and a message received).
Personally I enjoy the CW weekend more, but invariably score
higher on Phone weekend, simply because I can copy CW at only
about 45 WPM, and voice at about 300WPM.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: If you don't like keyers, you ain't gonna make it
contesting.


Actually I find that CW is more productive and I'm not nearly as fast at CW
(20wpm for contest, 15wpm for ragchew) as you are but then I'm just running
100watts into basic wire antennas.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Hans" == groupk0hb writes:

Hans "Jack Twilley" wrote

Jack If it is, NCI should be raising holy hell about the pro-code
Jack conspiracy behind all these contests, right?

Hans One NCI Director calls contests "electronic splat ball".
Hans Actually, I kinda like that description. One of my grandsons
Hans asked about contesting, and I used that metaphor. Now he wants
Hans to multi-op with me in this years SS.

Contests mean different things to different people, as you make clear
with your postscript.

Hans I regularly work both weekends of SS (CW one weekend, Phone two
Hans weeks later). Both are scored the same way, each two-way
Hans contact counts for 2 points (a message sent and a message
Hans received). Personally I enjoy the CW weekend more, but
Hans invariably score higher on Phone weekend, simply because I can
Hans copy CW at only about 45 WPM, and voice at about 300WPM.

If you were the average ham, Hans, and the purpose of the point
multiplier was to balance out the speeds, then the multiplier would
have to be 6 to be "fair". Personally, my multiplier right now would
have to be 20, but it's a goal of mine to get it down to 2 someday.

Hans 73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans PS: If you don't like keyers, you ain't gonna make it
Hans contesting.

We definitely have different goals in contesting. I don't care about
beating anyone else. When I enter a contest, my goal is to collect as
many points as possible without losing sight of why I'm there -- to
have fun, and to become a better operator.

What's your goal?

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAjy2ZGPFSfAB/ezgRAm/8AKD8MobgiCprF9UtmCUq+UrWBxowkwCfZ324
Slso84mESWnOw0+r5SVjEyc=
=QbCa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Dee" == Dee D Flint writes:

[... I suggested an experiment ...]

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

Not all CW ops put in as many hours of practice, and some phone ops
put in serious hours. My first contest -- as an Extra, no less -- was
a Field Day. I was terrified of the microphone, and spent more than
six hours practicing calling into a dead mike. It may sound stupid to
some of you, but I was really really really shy. We had a written
script to follow: "CQ Field Day, CQ Field Day, this is Whiskey Six
Charlie X-Ray" was the first line, then the next line included the
response with blanks to fill in, and even a line to thank the other
amateur and wish them luck in the contest. I don't think of this as
being the same as a voice keyer, by the way. We were actually pushing
the mike button and speaking, which was very exciting. The one thing
that was more fun than calling CQ was being the control op for
Technicians and non-amateurs who wanted to give it a try. One Tech
got the Cooke Islands as his first QSO, and he's now a General.

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

Oh, I agree. By far, the most common phrase at my station was "Say
again?". At my current stage of CW "literacy", I effectively need an
interpreter -- that cuts down on speed drastically.

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

I'm also in the 100W and wire antenna group. I don't have enough
experience with pile-ups and bad conditions, but one reason I want to
learn CW is because people think about what they send and don't waste
words on stupid stuff (at least in my fantasy-land) unlike other parts
of the band. I've only heard five minutes of 14.313, but that plus
some VHF repeater abuse has been enough to convince me that I want to
be where the better operators are, and I really hope they're on CW.

Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAjzMqGPFSfAB/ezgRAtWXAJoDHF4ElNcrEYtVxgNlSlmMZ4fb3wCgkzVR
tePSMfm+cxCUMDijrVN+tpg=
=e859
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

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.

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.

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.

hmmmm, I have to disagree somewhat.

This is kind of putting CW on a pedestal. 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.

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





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.

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.


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.





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.

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.

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:



Many if not most contests are mode specific. Like the "whatever CW
sprint" or
"North European SSB contest"..... Or RTTY events.

"Robert Casey" wrote

Many if not most contests are mode specific. Like the
"whatever CW
sprint" or "North European SSB contest"..... Or RTTY events.

We allow 2 points for CW, 2 points for RTTY, and 1 point for
phone. See http://www.w0aa.org/mnqp/2004/mnqprule.html

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Idly musing, I thought of this a few moments ago. It isn't a CW testing
question, but is related by being a CW operating question.

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

Yep. In fact it should be triple for CW and double for data modes.

While of course all contest rules are inherently arbitrary, does it
make sense to have one mode of contact be "more equal" than others?

Sure - if that mode uses less spectrum space and is more efficient.

Put another way, if you think that CW contacts should be worth double
points, is it fair to have say, PSK31 contacts worth the same double
points such as in Field day? Our GOTA station racked up a fair number of
points operating PSK31, and it was certainly no more difficult than
operating Phone.

It's more than fair. If anything the slant is towards 'phone because
you can put almost anybody in front of the mike after a few minutes
instruction and they can make FD QSOs (particularly if there's a
'logger' sitting right there).

Working CW takes special skills, working PSK-31 takes more equipment
and some skill (not as much as CW, of course, but more than 'phone).
Both modes use much less spectrum space and are more efficient. So
their use should be encouraged on Field Day (which is about the only
large mixed-mode HF contest in existence).

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

Said CW op also worked hard, did he not? And is "hard work" the
criteria, or effectiveness? You can fit at least 10 CW or PSK QSOs in
the space of one SSB QSO. Shouldn't that sort of efficiency be
encouraged?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Idly musing, I thought of this a few moments ago. It isn't a CW testing
question, but is related by being a CW operating question.

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


Yep. In fact it should be triple for CW and double for data modes.

While of course all contest rules are inherently arbitrary, does it
make sense to have one mode of contact be "more equal" than others?


Sure - if that mode uses less spectrum space and is more efficient.

Wow, talk about an arbitrary point, Jim! I never heard of any contest
rules based on bandwidth. ALthough if they did, it could make fro some
interesting scoring.


Put another way, if you think that CW contacts should be worth double
points, is it fair to have say, PSK31 contacts worth the same double
points such as in Field day? Our GOTA station racked up a fair number of
points operating PSK31, and it was certainly no more difficult than
operating Phone.


It's more than fair. If anything the slant is towards 'phone because
you can put almost anybody in front of the mike after a few minutes
instruction and they can make FD QSOs (particularly if there's a
'logger' sitting right there).

Working CW takes special skills, working PSK-31 takes more equipment
and some skill (not as much as CW, of course, but more than 'phone).
Both modes use much less spectrum space and are more efficient. So
their use should be encouraged on Field Day (which is about the only
large mixed-mode HF contest in existence).

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


Said CW op also worked hard, did he not? And is "hard work" the
criteria, or effectiveness? You can fit at least 10 CW or PSK QSOs in
the space of one SSB QSO. Shouldn't that sort of efficiency be
encouraged?

If it were the arbitrary reasoning behind the contest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Idly musing, I thought of this a few moments ago. It isn't a CW testing
question, but is related by being a CW operating question.


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

While of course all contest rules are inherently arbitrary, does it
make sense to have one mode of contact be "more equal" than others?

Put another way, if you think that CW contacts should be worth double
points, is it fair to have say, PSK31 contacts worth the same double
points such as in Field day? Our GOTA station racked up a fair number of
points operating PSK31, and it was certainly no more difficult than
operating Phone.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -


Yes it is worth giving the CW contacts double points. It will serve as an
aid in preserving a valuable communications tool. Some people will learn it
for the very purpose of getting more points in the contest.

This last Field Day, conditions were so poor that our two CW stations netted
more contacts than our three voice stations and GOTA station combined. Not
just points mind you but actual number of contacts.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE