Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24603 invoked from network); 21 May 2000 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by bells.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 21 May 2000 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12tYo7-00073c-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 21 May 2000 17:42:27 +0100 Received: from mb09.swip.net ([193.12.122.212]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12tYo6-00073X-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 21 May 2000 17:42:26 +0100 Received: from win95 (d212-151-36-178.swipnet.se [212.151.36.178]) by mb09.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10790 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 18:41:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001801bfc343$f9182ec0$b22497d4@win95.swipnet.se> From: "C Andersson" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: SV: Re: Re: Best tone for aural copy Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 18:44:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: >>>From Dave G3YMC >2. It has for a long time been the custom to use relatively slow speeds for >conventional CW on 136, in the belief that this is better when signals are >weak. I would question the wisdom in that. I have lost a number of QSO:s because the operator at the other end was sending much too fast with respect to the circumstances. I have no problem with QRQ if the conds allow it. It also is confirmed in the SM7CMY report that lowering the speed (in general) improves the readability. If I remember correctly, 5 wpm is given as optimum speed when signals are weak. However, I don't think that static chashes were included in the test routines... /sm6pxj