This is a simple discussion forum for LCWO users. Feel free to use it for any kind of discussion related to this website.
Posted: 2014-03-20 18:19
Is there a problem with timing in LCWO when reducing the effective WPM rate? I always thought 20/10 seemed a bit too fast (for me) so I did a little testing using the 'Convert text to CW' feature.
Set the character WPM and effective WPM to 15WPM both. Type the text 'Paris' into the text box 15 times and press convert. You will end up with an audio clip that is 60 seconds long. Perfect.
Go back in your browser to the same window and increase the character WPM to 20WPM but leave the effective WPM at 15WPM and re-submit the form. You get an audio clip that is 45 seconds long. Wrong?
Surely if the effective WPM is 15WPM then 15 x PARIS should always take 60 seconds, regardless of the character WPM? Am I missing something here?
Tnx es 73, David G7AGI
Posted: 2014-03-20 20:52
I'm pretty sure this is discussed elsewhere in the forum, but it comes down to this:
Individual characters are generated at the cpm speed.
Gaps between characters and words are generated at the wpm speed.
Effective speed is a combination of gaps at the wpm speed and characters at the cpm speed, so will usually end up somewhere between the two.
So if you really want a real N wpm you have to juggle the cpm and wpm to get you the effective wpm you really want...
Posted: 2014-03-21 11:14
in lcwo.net/forum/935 you will find
When LCWO says speed=N/M that uses N*31+N(19*N/M) standard dit times per minute instead of 50N standard dit times per minute for M=N (which is standard Morse with speed N wpm)
So the througput of N/M LCWO notation is
[N*31+N(19*N/M)]/50N as factor slower then N.
Rest of the math is your homework for this night.
Posted: 2014-03-21 18:33
Ok, thank you both for your answers. I can see now where the error comes from. It's not a big deal but I'll do some calibration tests because I like to know how fast (or slow) I really am. :o) 73
Posted: 2014-03-22 22:19
In my case im never quite fast enough...
After a bit of calculation I discovered im faster than I thought I was but not as fast as I want to be but then I suppose you never are ?
Posted: 2014-03-23 10:37
Sure, W9MIC made statistics from RBN over 1 month
He found out that:
Average CW Speed = 24.5 wpm
Standard Deviation = 5.9 wpm
Min = 1 wpm
Max = 68 wpm
Based on the RBN observations and my meager attempt to eliminate data redundancy, these stats are telling us is that about 70% of all QSOs are occurring between 19 30 wpm.
If you are operating above 30 wpm you are in the top 15% of observed QSOs.
If you are operating above 36 wpm, you are in the top 2% of observed QSOs."
So when you are easy with copy in your head of 40 wpm plain text, you surely are wasting your valuable time, when your purpose is to copy rag chewing on the hambands by head, however you can try it in order to increase the honor and glory of the hams that are faster and reached that state in less time used than you reach 5 wpm.
Posted: 2014-03-23 17:57
Thank you for the statistics Lea very interesting, Do you know if the beacons were taken out before making the averages ?
In fact I will go and try to find the answer myself.
Posted: 2014-03-24 14:17
After looking through some of the data I have come to one conclusion, I have a long way to go before I am going to be comfortable answering most of the CQ speeds out there.
Ok back to practice !
Posted: 2014-03-24 23:24
Suggest you call CQ at your comfirt speed, answering OMs should come back at your speed.
And please note the upcoming QRS activity week:
You must be logged in to post a message.