Callsign CW Speed Scoring

Whilst picking my new call, we came up with an excel sheet to score callsigns in terms of CW speed, but as G3CWI has pointed out it doesnt account for readability in poor propogation,

So…I have ranked all of Toms Xmas Quiz participants callsigns with the following results:-



Score devised from number of dots plus each dash converted to 3 dots

Useless information and just a bit of fun, anyone else want to offer their call is welcome.


In reply to G4MD:

Not sure what happened to your post but perhaps scores is the wrong term, character length perhaps??


In reply to MM0TAI:

Hi Adrian

Congrats on the new call!

34 for me, by your criteria. Though some may consider I’m cheating a bit :wink:

73 de Paul G4MD

(Sorry about the deletion, realised my way of working it out was different when I checked a couple of the others and went away to find out why. Seems it was because your algorithm doesn’t put in the three dots between characters?)

In reply to G4MD:
By your own score I’m a 36.
Mind you, at my current speed of 1 word a minute with a near 100% inaccuracy rate, this makes no difference.
On wards and upwards as they say.
Looking forward to trying to go on-air using cw sometime next year.
Probably be December '11.
Think I could do with joining a local club to help me out a bit. If nothing else, should give me the encouragement to put a bit of time into it, as there is always something else to do.
I do think that LCWO will be a great help to me.

In reply to MM0TAI:

Syllable count:

mike mike zer-oh fox mike fox: 7
mike mike zer-oh tan-go al-pha in-di-a: 11


Foxtrot - surely? Tsk.


In reply to M1EYP:

Nope. I never use foxtrot and always use fox as it’s a whole syllable shorter.

You could get your count to 5!

mike one egg yule pope


Yeah, but you still applied the traditional multi-syllable phonetics to Adrian’s callsign when comparing with your own!

In reply to M1EYP:

True, but when have I ever let fact get in the way of a good post! :slight_smile:


In reply to MM0TAI:

My call sign is very fast: Z35M = 28

           Vlado, Z35M

In reply to G1STQ:

Hi John,

Last year or possibly the Year before, Rick M0RCP suggested a regular evening morse net on 80 metres. I recall joining this on occasions & I found it very useful. It was oriented towards SOTA in that QRP was the norm if possible & speeds were deliberately kept quite low to allow those new to morse to join in at their own speed.

It would certainly help you once you have reached a speed you are happy to try on the air, to try it amongst friends. I seem to remember that the net was held around 3.558 MHz, which is very close to the QRP centre of activity & also near the usual FISTS frequency. A CQ around these frequencies at any speed will usually get a response.

I am not sure if the SOTA morse net is still going on the same basis, but given the current number of chasers & activators expressing an interest in learning the mode, maybe we could bring it back?

I would be unable to participate at present due to my 80m QRM problem, although there is some positive movement on that front which I will add to my previous post on that subject.

Best 73,

Mark G0VOF

In reply to G0VOF:

Hi Mark,

I’m afraid the SOTA morse net (CQ SMN etc.) had only a brief existance, before work commitments caught up with me, and it fizzled out. One problem, I seem to remember, was that intra-G propagation was not always good and there would be periods of days during which it was difficult to work other UK SOTA stations over the general background noise.

If anyone wants a slow speed QSO to practice their morse then 1830 - 1930 on or around 3.558 is as good a place to start as any. Even if there are no SOTA activators/chasers on at that time you’ll almost certainly get a response to
a CQ withing a few minutes or find someone sending slow morse.

When the idea of a practice net was first proposed there was less interest in CW in SOTA circles than there is nowadays and most of the participants where in the UK. Perhaps if it were tried again, coordinated via a thread on this reflector, it would attract more takers, and a critical mass might be attained.


In reply to MM0TAI:

This is a good toy for winter evenings even if it has not too much relationship with actual time consumption of transmitting your callsign. N.b. this used to be a significant aspect in the age of good old HSCW MS (i.e. high speed telegraphy meteor scatter) communication. The shorter a callsign was, the more likely it was that even a short burst too contained it in its entirety. This is the reason why zero was always abbreviated to “T”, often 9 too for “N” ans “/” was always neglected. Since K1JT Joe established his WSJT package (which is practically transmitting DTMF codes), the significance of that dropped significantly. The only thing counts is the number of characters in it.

What do I mean? Adrian’s calculation says that a letter „S” and „T” are of equal value (3 units) though the time “transmitting” spaces between the „dit” and „dot” elements of the Morse codes should also be considered as those also take the same time as a „dit” does. A letter „S” consists out of 3 dits and 2 intermediate spaces, i.e. is a total of 5 units, While a „T” is really 3 units Long. And what is more, you also need to consider that a dash long intermission has to be inserted between the individual letters! That is, in order to obtain a technically correct value, you should add three times the number of characters in your callsign to the calculated value!

BTW Z35Z Vlado won by a single unit as my callsign is 29 scores as per Adrian’s calculation… An unbeatable competitor were EE5E of a score value of 8! :slight_smile:

Merry Christmas and happy New Year for everybody!

73: Jóska, HA5CW

If I am awake enough to understand this, I should be at 44 (I wonder why,hihi)

Peter, ON2WAB