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 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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part of
the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial number,
class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time which you don't
have to send but which are part of the required logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

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

While one mode or the other may have an advantage due to better
conditions (or whatever) in any single given year, the Nov SS contest
has been run with CW and Phone weekends 14 days apart for many decades
(1st and 3rd weekends of November respectively). Without a SINGLE
exception, the average scores on phone weekends are significantly higher
than on the CW weekends, no exceptions. The reason is that the exchange
is faster on phone than on CW.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

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

While one mode or the other may have an advantage due to better
conditions (or whatever) in any single given year, the Nov SS contest
has been run with CW and Phone weekends 14 days apart for many decades
(1st and 3rd weekends of November respectively).

Yep.

Without a SINGLE
exception, the average scores on phone weekends are significantly higher
than on the CW weekends, no exceptions.

Did you mean winning scores, Hans? Or did you actually add up all the
scores submitted each year and work out the average? "Average scores"
can mean a lot of different things.

The reason is that the exchange
is faster on phone than on CW.

For a sizable percentage of the participants, that's certainly a
factor. And I'm sure most of them don't repeat back the entire SS
exchange - unlike what I hear so often on Field Day.

There is also the factor that there may be more participants during
the 'phone weekend. Also fewer QRP entries on phone?

A really fun contest regardless of mode. Someday I'll do a sweep...

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"N2EY" == N2EY writes:

[...]

N2EY Perhaps someone can explain a certain operating habit I hear on
N2EY Field Day - but only one 'phone:

N2EY I hear most FD 'phone ops repeating the *received*
N2EY exchange. That is, you'll hear:

N2EY "November Two Echo Yankee from November Three Kilo Zed, roger
N2EY your One Bravo Eastern Pennsylvania, OK on your 1B EPA, please
N2EY copy my three alfa ...."

N2EY Why do so many deem it necessary to tell me what I just told
N2EY them? Heck, I know what class and section I'm in!

Actually, we were told to do it at our site. The purpose of the
repeat is to ensure that information was transferred correctly. This
is relevant in real emergency communications as well as contesting, in
my eyes, and I think it's good practice.

N2EY On CW, the single letter "R" does the job, and some ops don't
N2EY even bother with the R - they send their exchange as an
N2EY indication that they got yours. Or they send "TU" - (thank you)
N2EY which does the job of "roger" and "73" both.

Hopefully my code will be fast enough that I can observe the CW
station during FD this year.

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)

iD8DBQFAk+KMGPFSfAB/ezgRApkLAJ4seayv7lnDFtcNZ+YMl8CR1HpdcQCePWV6
TYJetaGTT1OAJuAdV57phSQ=
=Ugj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...


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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part of
the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial number,
class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time which you don't
have to send but which are part of the required logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well Jim, I think it means that phone ops are lids and real hams do it with
continous wave.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
nk.net:


"N2EY" wrote in message
m...


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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part of
the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial number,
class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time which you don't
have to send but which are part of the required logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well Jim, I think it means that phone ops are lids and real hams do it
with continous wave.

Dan/W4NTI




At last your real agenda comes out, Dan. Somehow. I'm not surprised. You
want the code test kept because you consider all of us phone ops to be
lids.

Alun, N3KIP

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
nk.net:


"N2EY" wrote in message
m...


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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part of
the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial number,
class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time which you don't
have to send but which are part of the required logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well Jim, I think it means that phone ops are lids and real hams do it
with continous wave.

Dan/W4NTI




At last your real agenda comes out, Dan. Somehow. I'm not surprised. You
want the code test kept because you consider all of us phone ops to be
lids.

Alun, N3KIP

No, not all phone ops are lids. Just the ones that think phone is better
than CW. Does that shoe fit Alun?

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
ink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
nk.net:


"N2EY" wrote in message
m...


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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part
of the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial
number, class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time
which you don't have to send but which are part of the required
logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well Jim, I think it means that phone ops are lids and real hams do
it with continous wave.

Dan/W4NTI




At last your real agenda comes out, Dan. Somehow. I'm not surprised.
You want the code test kept because you consider all of us phone ops
to be lids.

Alun, N3KIP

No, not all phone ops are lids. Just the ones that think phone is
better than CW. Does that shoe fit Alun?

Dan/W4NTI



You are unbeleivable.

1) That ain't what you said; and

2) Even if it were it would be an indefensible position.

If we define a lid as being a bad operator, you are saying that anyone who
thinks that one mode is better than another is a bad operator (unless they
say that your preferred mode is better). I have never heard such idiotic
cr*p in my entire life.

My only reason for preferring phone is that I like to use radio to talk. If
you prefer to make bleeping noises instead I could't care less. If you were
into SSTV, or PSK31 or what-have-you I would say that was fine too. On the
whole, I would say that comparisons of bandwidth, throughput, signal-to-
noise etc were only valid within one type of information, whether it is
phone, or data or video, or whatever.

You said, and I quote "phone ops are lids" and then, partially recanting
"not all phone ops are lids. Just the ones that think phone is better than
CW". Well, I am a phone op and I think that phone is not surprisingly
better at carrying voice information than CW is.

You know what, though, you are the lid.

Alun, N3KIP

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
ink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
nk.net:


"N2EY" wrote in message
m...


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!

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.

--

One other point: Neither FD nor SS have the signal report as part
of the contact. FD is callsign, section and class, SS is serial
number, class, callsign, check and section, plus date and time
which you don't have to send but which are part of the required
logging.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well Jim, I think it means that phone ops are lids and real hams do
it with continous wave.

Dan/W4NTI




At last your real agenda comes out, Dan. Somehow. I'm not surprised.
You want the code test kept because you consider all of us phone ops
to be lids.

Alun, N3KIP

No, not all phone ops are lids. Just the ones that think phone is
better than CW. Does that shoe fit Alun?

Dan/W4NTI



You are unbeleivable.

1) That ain't what you said; and

2) Even if it were it would be an indefensible position.

If we define a lid as being a bad operator, you are saying that anyone who
thinks that one mode is better than another is a bad operator (unless they
say that your preferred mode is better). I have never heard such idiotic
cr*p in my entire life.

My only reason for preferring phone is that I like to use radio to talk.
If
you prefer to make bleeping noises instead I could't care less. If you
were
into SSTV, or PSK31 or what-have-you I would say that was fine too. On the
whole, I would say that comparisons of bandwidth, throughput, signal-to-
noise etc were only valid within one type of information, whether it is
phone, or data or video, or whatever.

You said, and I quote "phone ops are lids" and then, partially recanting
"not all phone ops are lids. Just the ones that think phone is better than
CW". Well, I am a phone op and I think that phone is not surprisingly
better at carrying voice information than CW is.

You know what, though, you are the lid.

Alun, N3KIP

And I think your a lid. Now what?

Dan/W4NTI