[Elecraft] [OT] increasing CW copy speed: practice slow -v- practice fast

[Robert G Strickland]

I have used all the programs mentioned in this thread and have found 
them all useful. I spend most of my practice time with Rufz, 
occasionally going to Morse Runner. I'm not drawn to G4FON's program, 
because there's no way to interact directly with the program as it 
generates code [as with Rufz]. Focusing on Rufz, my initial post 
basically asks about a comparison between starting at the target speed 
and working down or at a slower speed and working up.

I'm quick to acknowledge that all methods/approaches presume that one 
puts in the practice time to become proficient. If one wants to increase 
cw proficiency, then spend a lot of time in cw qso's. No free lunches. 
Recently, when working at the computer on business, I tune in a cw qso 
and just let it go on "at the back of my attention" as I work. This 
seems to be having some positive effect.

What I personally find happening - I'm 75y/o - is that in higher speed 
qso's I start slowly lagging behind the sender until I miss a word/words 
that breaks the intelligibility of the conversation. Frustrating! 
Another point, I think that copying call signs at high speed is more 
demanding in that one doesn't have the conversation stream/meaning to 
help fill in for missed words.

...robert

On 12/5/2015 03:21, Robert G Strickland wrote:
> The following comments/questions focus on increasing CW copying speed,
> not the task of initially learning the code. That said, there may be an
> overlap between the two tasks.
>
> W1AW starts its CW practice speeds fast and then slows down. Presumably,
> as the speed get slower the mental demand lessens and copying becomes
> easier; then, ease of copying starts occurring at higher speeds over
> time/trials. From my days studying animal learning, I remember
> significant research to the effect that starting a new task in the
> easiest form [slow CW speed] lessened/prevented errors and, by the end,
> resulted in quicker and more accurate learning.
>
> I tend to practice 3-letter groups at 35-40 wpm, 5-letter groups at
> 30-35 wpm, and 7-letter groups at 25-30 wpm [for better or worse]. This
> is somewhat geared to DX contesting since call signs are not "words."
>
> All that said, I'm starting to wonder if the animal study folks may have
> a point. How about the reverse of the above approach. For example, start
> with 3-letter groups at an error free speed, slowing increasing speed as
> long as the error rate stays under some value [5%, say]. Keep working at
> a given speed until the error rate is reached, then increment. Proceed
> in this fashion until a goal speed is reached. Then, repeat in the same
> fashion for longer letter groups. The same approach could be used with
> numbers, complete call signs, and sweepstakes type exchanges.
>
> The general idea is to minimize the error rate so that only correct
> neural networks are formed in the brain. These can be slowly stretched,
> perhaps like increasing strength in weight training and increasing range
> of motion after orthopedic surgery, all the time working at the edge to
> slowly increase capacity. This might also be applicable to increasing
> the speed of characters as in the Farnsworth method. I'm interested in
> what folks think.
>
> ...rober

-- 
Robert G Strickland, PhD ABPH - KE2WY
rcrgs at verizon.net.usa
Syracuse, New York, USA