At the last meeting we discussed the possibility of having a LoTW “workshop” for members who need some assistance. I’d like to get an idea if there is some support for this idea before we commit to a location for the meeting (we will require internet access).
How many people would take advantage of this workshop if offered? Please let me know as soon as possible.
If there’s enough interest I’ll contact those members about their specific needs to make sure all the prerequisites are met so I can help them (received post card with password for LoTW access, have files to be uploaded, etc.).
I am lamenting the lack of an Internet connection at the Crandall House. I think our meetings, or more specifically our presentations, could benefit from a high-speed Internet connection. I’m doing a presentation on LoTW and while a real-time connection is the obvious best method, I’m going to make due with a “death-by-Powerpoint”-style presentation instead. Yech.
So I got to thinking that maybe we should search for a new venue that can not only accommodate our IT requirements, but one that might be food and drink friendly. And then I thought, “Why not see if we can get several venues so we can rotate them? That way we can make traveling to meetings more equitable.”
I know there are some facilities that have meeting rooms for the public to use. I’m thinking of libraries, hospitals, and colleges and universities, to name a few. Maybe we can find some that will accommodate our needs. The idea would be to have each member find a venue in his community that offers the right stuff, and then the club can make an “official” request. It could even be at a member’s house if he wants.
If we only got even three or four venues, we could rotate the meetings among them so we wouldn’t have the same people driving the greatest distance every time. And the change of scenery would be good.
I still receive emails from Dick, KB1H, about the goings-on in his contest group, despite not having operated at his station for many years. One of the things they have had difficulties with is other stations miscopying their call sign (such as “K6JH”). In trying to make it easier to copy, it was suggested that they vary the speed and spacing at which individual characters in their call are sent. This may be obvious to some of you but I thought I would mention it. I know other stations do this, as I have heard them during contests.
By breaking up a call into more easily discernible parts, you should increase intelligibility and therefore decrease fills and NILs (Not-In-Log) . For example I know on CW, Matt, WE1H gets his call miscopied as “VE1H” quite a bit. Unlike many character errors (as in confusing a “B” and a “6” and a “1” and a “J” as in KB1H’s case), Matt’s problem obviously doesn’t arise from any similarity between the “W” and the “V” but due to the uniqueness of his prefix’s similarity to the “VE” prefix. In other words, operators may be copying his “W” correctly but then mentally altering the prefix once they hear the “E” to make it fit with a much more prevalent (and therefore probable) “VE” prefix. He might benefit from separating the “W” from the rest of his call by either sending it at a slightly slower speed (~2-4 WPM) than the rest, and/or by slightly increasing the spacing between the “W” and the “E” to make it stand out more. He may already be doing this, but I thought it would make a good example. Maybe he has some input he can give.
I even have to do this on SSB. Many people get confused by the “NG” and the “1G”, and try to make sense out of it by concocting call signs like “November One Golf Something…” or “November Golf Golf”. This happens even in good or excellent conditions, so I know it’s a recognition issue. So what I do is say my call sign like this: “November Golf <slight pause> ONE Golf”, making sure I emphasize the “ONE” after the pause. I have found that it really helps others understand my call better. It not only separates my call into two distinct phrases but by emphasizing the “ONE” and placing it with the suffix I think it makes the second “Golf” easier to understand. Of course on CW you can’t emphasize a character in the same way, but by altering speed or spacing you can make a character or groups of characters stand out more, producing the same effect and making it easier to copy correctly.
During the CW Sweepstakes I used this method to help with my exchange. I don’t think Writelog provides a way to use variable sending speed within a stored message, so what I did was simply add spaces between parts of the exchange to make them stand out. I could control the overall sending speed, which I did according to receiving operator or conditions, but I think the variable spacing also helped, even at higher speeds. I didn’t get asked for a lot of fills, but I also have no frame of reference since this was my first CW SS. Perhaps my LCR (Log Checking Report) will shed light on my success or lack of it.
It”s one thing to hear someone copy your call incorrectly during the QSO, but it’s another to see how they actually logged it. Even if you correct them and they repeat it back correctly you still don’t know what their brain (or hands) did to your call. The UBN (Unique, Bad, NIL) report and LCR are invaluable tools in post-contest assessment for determining if this is happening to you, and the effects of making your call and exchange as easy as possible to copy should be reflected in those reports. Has anyone else adopted this method?
Vibroplex Original DeLuxe dusted off for this post
Yes, you read the title correctly. I don’t know CW, but I have been working CW contests. For those of us who are CW-impaired there is a way to take part in CW contests and still be able to submit pretty respectable scores, all the while working on your DXCC count. Now, I don’t want to give anyone the impression that I think I’m the first person to do this, because I know there are lot of stations out there who use the same basic method I do to send and receive CW during contests and when DXing. I also doubt I’m alone in the ability to work a CW contest despite being CW-handicapped. But I thought I would describe how I do it in case someone else wants to give it a try. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, so I’m sure you can come up with various software/hardware combinations to do the same thing. As it turns out, I can have almost the same point and click experience using CW as I can using RTTY, and that has expanded my station’s capability and the contests I can work by a huge factor, both of which drastically increase the fun factor!
My station setup is very basic. On the hardware side, my contest transciever is a Yaesu FT-2000, and the amp is an Ameritron 811. I use a RIGblaster pro, a vibroplex bug, and of course a computer. Audio from the FT-2000 is fed from the RTTY jack to the RIGblaster, and then out via the RIGblaster’s LINE OUT connection to the computer’s LINE IN connection. The FT-2000 is connected to the computer via a serial port for rig control. The CW keying line is connected from the RIGblaster to the rear CW jack on the FT-2000, and my bug is connected to the front CW key jack. This way I can use either method of sending.
The software is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. For contest logging, I prefer to use Writelog (WL for short), and as luck would have it WL includes a very capable CW decoder. But that’s just half of the package. With WL I would be restricted to using function keys for preprogrammed messages, but I really like using a mouse to perform as many functions as I can, RTTY-style. So I picked up a neat little program called FKeys (thanks to Rick, KI1G), which allows me to configure it to send the contest info using the mouse instead of the function keys on the keyboard. Now all I have to do is type the call sign of the station I want to work and their exchange, but if I happen to be running in the Assisted category I can use WL’s Bandmap window and it’s almost all point and click after that!
Basically, the functionality of this setup works like this: Using the adjustable IF DSP filter on the FT-2000, I narrow it down to 50 Hz (that’s right, 50). This allows me to isolate the CW signal in the audio going to the software. I have found that the ability to do that is pretty critical to maximizing the CW decoder’s accuracy. The FT-2000 display includes a handy indicator that tells me when I’m zero-beat on a signal, and that is essential to the accuracy of the decoder. The decoder does include a signal display in case your rig doesn’t have that feature. On louder signals I can expand the IF width a little if I want, but in rough or crowded conditions or when receiving weaker signals, the 50 Hz filter works best, so that’s usually where I leave it. If I expand the filter a little, the decoder can also decode signals on either side of the passband’s center, although accuracy can suffer a little. When I tune in a CW signal, the decoder goes to work and displays the text moving from right to left. It takes a little getting used to but it’s easy. I should probably mention that I don’t trust the software implicitly, so I do actually listen to the information being sent. Although like I said I don’t “know” CW, it’s a lot easier to decode it when you already have a good idea of what is being sent. Once I confirm the call sign, if I want to make a contact I just click on the FKey button to send my call. WL allows me to adjust the CW sending speed so I can tailor it to the station I’m working. When the station comes back to me, I click on the exchange button and the rig sends the proper exchange. I enter the info in the log, click on the button to send my report and enter the QSO, and start searching for my next one. There are other cool features too, such as the ability to type text and send on the fly, or type ahead and send later.
A couple of words of caution. WL does not copy “slower speed” CW very well (that is, below about 15-20 WPM), and below a certain threshold it won’t copy at all. When there is a large enough gap between characters the software will insert the letter “E”, I guess because it decodes any static it hears into a “dit”. It does, however, decode CW very well at high speeds, such as one would experience in a contest. For the slow speed operators, I find I can usually decode them on my own. The other thing I’ll mention is that there is obviously a limit to how well it can decode very weak signals, so with those I’m usually on my own too.
One major drawback for some might be that this setup doesn’t work well when running stations. If you get even a couple of stations calling on frequency, the decoder gets confused. For that reason, I limit myself to S&P operation. During the ARRL DX CW contest, I worked 389 Qs in 20.5 hours of leisurely operating time, and wound up with a score of 246,729. Not bad for a guy who doesn’t know CW. But the real proof is in my error rate. I had a 1.5% error rate – that’s 4 calls and 2 exchanges copied incorrectly. I worked every band, 160M to 10M, and even picked up a couple of new countries.
So if you’re not a CW operator, you might want to give this a try. Not only does it work well in a contest but it’s great for DXing, and it’s helping me relearn CW in a way that I find to be a lot more fun.
