The SOTA Activator (SA) has many antenna choices. The ‘ins and outs’ of these continue to be explored thoroughly on this reflector; a great resource.
On HF, most SAs use a TX power of 5-10 watts; sometimes more. Battery weight, plus the elevation challenge of the day, are important considerations.
In many ways, for antennas and TX power, perhaps largely the ‘die is cast’? That said, much research on improving battery power-to-weight ratio continues.
For a given power level and antenna, often but not always, more results can be achieved using CW rather than SSB.
Quite a lot on the reflector points to SAs ‘getting by’ with their current CW skill level; but often it seems like a struggle. And in turn this risks diminished enjoyment and results?
Some SAs do no CW at all. Perhaps they have little interest, perhaps they have tried (repeatedly) but it was too difficult, too much work, and so forth? We should respect their decision. Indeed, I can relate to this when it comes to playing the Stratocaster that now lives in a bag in my hall-cupboard
Equally, I have never sought help or tuition in respect of the Stratocaster. There was never much of a plan or structure. Most times, I just ‘gave it a go’ when the family were out. A good friend used to give me valued advice, but sadly he became SK some years ago.
Still, every now and gain, inspired by legacy footage on YouTube I do feel the urge to give the Stratocaster another ‘go’. Next time, not just struggling by, but having the courage to get professional help?
Likewise, for those struggling with CW, perhaps with support from others, more structure and a plan, real improvement is possible?
There are a lot of things that could be done. One is providing a relaxed opportunity to practice, rather than sitting on a hilltop in a blizzard knowing that a single mis-copied character could mean someone doesn’t get a well-earned contact. That might be a local or regional slower-speed practice net, perhaps where folks tell stories from their activations. It doesn’t matter if other hams don’t copy everything, but there is an incentive to catch the jokes and funny stories. (Optimum learning speed is where you can copy about 85% of what is sent - enough to get most of it, but still a push to get it all.) Such nets could be done locally on 2m FM simplex as well as HF.
Volunteer mentors might also be useful for those with specific problems.
But one of the most important points is the wide range of different potential problems that perspective CW operators may encounter. It isn’t something that comes easily to everyone.
A common problem is hearing issues, such as ringing in the ears. That might limit the maximum speed, or require a different pitch of tone. In some cases, keying white noise may be easier for someone to copy than a specific frequency. Some might need to listen with only one ear. Sharp audio filters help for some but not all. In some cases, a flashing LED might be easier for someone to read than an audio signal, at least at lower speeds. Some may do better with a different pitch than the common 700 Hz or whatever is default for a radio.
There are some teaching methods that rely on extra conversion steps, that might be OK at 5 WPM but fall apart at 20 WPM. For example, visual images for each letter (I remember “Racer” for R, using the two dots as the wheels and the middle dash as the body of a race car). That’s counterproductive if you want to be proficient, as it requires extra mental processing steps. You want to be able to go directly from the sound to writing the character.
And there may be other difficulties, perhaps an aversion to the sound, not being able to separate tones of different frequencies, or not being able to write fast enough. (A fast operator often copies the words in their head and writes or types a couple words behind what is being sent.)
On the other hand, spelling out street signs in CW as you drive past them can help reinforce the sounds, and several hams have found it a good way to practice.
Having learned the code back when a 6-transistor pocket radio was still a technical marvel, however, I’m probably NOT the best person to be responding here. Rather, I’d like to hear from those who have recently learned it, to see what worked well (or not) in their experience, as well as those who are having trouble with it. Because there are a lot of possible issues, and finding out where the sticking points are for each individual is an important part of helping them along the way. Then we can discuss what approaches may be helpful for each: it might be a practice net, or a sharper audio filter, or changing the CW offset or AGC speed, or recognizing that 10 WPM is the highest speed that keeps reverberation in the audio passages under control, or whatever.
Some of these may be easy. Some may require technical or medical assistance. but we certainly can provide a supportive place to have such discussions, while understanding that many hams face difficulties that we didn’t have to deal with when we were learning.
And there is still a lot to be said for voice modes: sometimes that is faster and simpler than hooking up a key. Now, it used to be that most small rigs (like the Heathkit HW-7, a Ten-Tec Power Mite, or Ameco AC-1) only operated on CW, but since the Argonaut 505 came out around 1970, SSB has been a available option for a battery-powered backpack rig, even if not as compact as some of the newer ones. If that gets you 4 contacts when you need it, then learning CW might not provide any advantage.
Structure or Plan?? Try this proven and tested method of training which has been used with little variation by thousands of professional operators around the world.:
Hams or anyone else learning morse on their own face numerous problems and I’ve outlined many of these at the end of the the article I’ve referenced.
Just a few points: -
Morse is not difficult to learn. Its no harder than learning the A,B, C + numbers and a few punctuation signs. Many 4 year olds manage this quite easily. Spending only five or ten minutes a day isn’t quite enough.
Tinnitus might be a problem for some, depending on how bad it is. I have tinnitus but it has absolutely no effect (as far as I’m aware) on my ability to read morse.
Fancy teaching/learning methods, like the example/s you give, just make it harder to learn as there are more stages. Most appear to be gimmicks.
There are couple of UK activators I’ve come across on here who have learned to to be quite competent at sending & receiving at 25wpm and hold conversations at that speed. Both told me they spent anything between half an hour to one hour each day practicing at gradually faster speeds once they got good accuracy (85% or above) before increasing speed one or two wpm each time…
Writing stuff down at speed, probably up to 30wpm is quite possible -but from my experience these are mostly folk who learned, as military or commercially operators as younger teenagers or a little later.
Going on the air whilst you are still struggling to get to grips with CW may be fine in theory but it would appear to me that many get on the air too soon and find they are out of their depth faced with the realities of morse on the air and give up. That said, once you can read morse confidently at say 10-15wpm then getting on the air and having longer QSOs definitely does bring improvement and a vast increase in confidence.
If there was a faster method of learning that the outline in the link then I’ve yet to hear of any commercial or professional operator who learned using any faster method. I’m sure if they was that commercial or military establishments would have discovered it as training costs time, money and resources.
