Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mh01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mh01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.213]) by air-me07.mail.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILINME073-8bba4db9b8bed0; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:58:06 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mh01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CB7ED3800010E; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QFWOj-0004QY-5Y for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:57:09 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QFWOi-0004QP-N5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:57:08 +0100 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QFWOg-0004SI-8W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:57:08 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtkBACi4uU1cB9+1/2dsb2JhbACUC4QHDjGNMnjFcYV2BIILmls X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,282,1301871600"; d="scan'208,217";a="339757170" Received: from host-92-7-223-181.as43234.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.7.223.181]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 28 Apr 2011 19:56:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002201cc05d6$01561260$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <001001cc05c9$a2882ae0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:56:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: QRP Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CC05DE.62C70330" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60d54db9b8bb77e8 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CC05DE.62C70330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Markus I have made it quite clear that presently I am not interested in Trans= mitting on 9 khz and if I did you would certainly hear me.=20 I am told that I have the strongest signal on 137 and 500 khz from EU= and the same would apply if I could be bothered to TX on 9 khz. Some years ago there was over 30 countries active on 137 CW and now it= is down to just a few, 500 khz is likewise not worth the effort anymo= re and 9 khz is not worth the effort as far as I am concerned. 73 de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:10 PM Subject: Re: LF: QRP Righto Mal - so when will we finally see a decent 9 kHz signal from= that famous Scarborough antenna? 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: mal hamilton=20 Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:28 PM To: rsgb=20 Subject: LF: QRP Why do some insist on flogging QRP on the LF bands. The object shoul= d be to generate a signal that all can hear or see.=20 QRO is more appropriate on the lower frequencies otherwise the RX op= erator has a hard time digging the signal out of the noise. The TX operator puts no effort into the exercise. QRP and Earth mode= equally disaster for those making an effort to detect signals on LF.= =20 I leave gas pipe and electic wire underground propagation to the loc= al gas/el installer and do not believe all you see on twitter and twee= t by others. G3KEV ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CC05DE.62C70330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Markus
I have made it quite clear that presently I am= not=20 interested in Transmitting on 9 khz and if I did you would certainly= hear me.=20
I am told that I have the strongest signal on= 137 and 500=20 khz from EU and the same would apply if I could be bothered to TX on= 9=20 khz.
Some years ago there was over 30 countries act= ive on 137=20 CW and now it is down to just a few, 500 khz is likewise not worth the= effort=20 anymore and 9 khz is not worth the effort as far as I am concerned.
73 de mal/g3kev
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 201= 1 7:10=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRP

Righto Mal - so when will we finall= y see a decent=20 9 kHz signal from that famous Scarborough antenna?
 
73, Markus (DF6NM)

From: mal hamilton=
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:28 PM
To: rsgb
Subject: LF: QRP

Why do some insist on flogging QRP on the LF= bands. The=20 object should be to generate a signal that all can hear or see.
QRO is more appropriate on the lower frequen= cies=20 otherwise the RX operator has a hard time digging the signal out of= the=20 noise.
The TX operator puts no effort into the exer= cise. QRP=20 and Earth mode equally disaster for those making an effort to detect= signals=20 on LF.
I leave gas pipe and electic wire undergroun= d=20 propagation to the local gas/el installer and do not believe all you= see on=20 twitter and tweet
by others.
G3KEV
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CC05DE.62C70330--