Message-ID: <001701c15548$c4af17a0$15517ad5@dave>
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <3BCA01CD.CC0109A1@alg.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: Farewell, LFers
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:10:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

>From Dave G3YMC

I am indeed sorry to see that Steve will be leaving the LF scene, and having probably
had more QSOs with him over the past few years than I can count, my log book will be
less full in the future.  However I have to admit to sharing many of Steve's feelings
regarding the new 2m relay.

G0MRF wrote:
>Oh fiddle.  I guess I'll have to burn my satellite QSLs

The big difference with satellite QSOs and indeed those for normal terrestrial
repeaters is that both parties in the QSO are fully aware that they are using this
relay, where it is, and any QSL card should hopefully clearly state that it is a
satellite or repeater QSO.  There is nothing wrong here.  Even in Larry's case, where
a private remote station with (I understand) both receiver and transmitter at the
same location is used, and provided the location of this remote station is used on
any confirmation, is probably OK.

Here we have a PUBLIC relay, with a well publicised frequency, which either side (or
both) can use and the remote party unless told is not aware of its use.  Rather than
being local to one of the stations it could be many miles away.  Any claims for best
dx or personal satisfaction in working a particular station is thrown completely out
of the window.  It is this deceipt aspect which I think has much upset Ron G6RO, who
rightly thought his signals were being heard in Windsor and not Crawley.

I must admit to a certain involvement in Ron's QSO with MB2HFC as I was asked to help
copy his weak signal (but did not actually transmit).  It was not obvious to me at
the time that I was receiving using a remote receiver, despite the presence of a
block diagram on the adjacent table, and may not have been apparent to passing
visitors unless they were told.  But I would comment that Ron's QRP signals were MUCH
weaker on this set up than I have been receiving him here.  It would have helped
if the operator had told Ron that a remote receive set up was being used and its
location, like Derek did yesterday when I worked the station.

Yesterday I did monitor MB7LF for a while.  I do not need to use it here, as my own
receive set up is perfectly adequate.  I noted that Tom G3OLB is very weak via the
relay.

I do not want to start long arguments on the reflector (or I will also unsubscribe)
but wish to make it clear that there are quite a few of us with big reservations
about this 'new technology' tool.

73s Dave G3YMC
dsergeant@iee.org
dsergeant@btinternet.com
http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk