[Elecraft] QRQ CW

[Dauer, Edward]

What I encounter frequently in contests is stations using two speeds
within each QSO.  The slower (usually ~30 WPM) sends the unique
information such as the call sign of the station being worked and the S/N
where that's required; and the higher speed (which I can't estimate) for
common exchange elements such as the ubiquitous 599 and the QTH or
whatever else is the same for every contact.  Where stations use speeds
much in excess of 35 WPM for their own call sign it does waste time, I
suspect, with others having to listen two or three times to get it down
right.  Someone with math skills better than mine might calculate how much
time is saved sending 50+ rather than 30 in a contest QSO, given the
irreducible time for the rest of the exchange (the reply, typing into the
log, waiting for the next guy in the pileup, etc.) and the probability
that the other side is sending at 30.  I'll bet it's not much.

Ted, KN1CBR
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:07:07 +0000
>From: Brian Alsop <alsopb at nc.rr.com>
>To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: [Elecraft] QRQ CW
>Message-ID: <5360066B.7060909 at nc.rr.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>There was a thread on QRQ CW here.  Also a query about does anybody send
>QRQ CW.
>
>For 2013 CQ WW contest N6TV did an analysis.
>The answer was 30+ WPM average.
>The top speeds were in excess of 50 WPM!
>
>See: http://cqww.com/blog/?p=302
>
>With all the K3's being used by contesters, it doesn't appear that
>contesters are running into QSD problems at 30+ WPM.
>
>73 de Brian/K3KO
>
>
>-----
>
>>  When did it creep that low?  I
>> suppose it is a victim of the lack of CW requirement or something like
>>that.
>
>
>
>