Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Received: (qmail 86926 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2003 16:35:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO netmail02.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.221) by ptb-mailstore with SMTP; 6 Dec 2003 16:35:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 19039 invoked by uid 10001); 6 Dec 2003 16:35:10 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.20) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2003 16:34:57 -0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ASfNV-0001rv-CN for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:33:57 +0000 Received: from [212.135.6.10] (helo=smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ASfNU-0001rm-S7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:33:56 +0000 Received: from tnt-5-196.easynet.co.uk ([195.40.200.196] helo=bryan2) by smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 1ASfNT-0002Dn-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:33:56 +0000 X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (bryan2) Message-ID: <004201c3bc16$a4883c40$e2c428c3@bryan2> From: "captbrian" <captbrian@ukonline.co.uk> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3FD1F1C0.26180.1D5756B@localhost> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:33:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: LF: activity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 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: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Rating: 2 In LF parlance how slow is "QRS" please. I have tuned over 136 countless times and heard an amateur cw signal only once. Bryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@btinternet.com> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Sent: 06 December 2003 15:12 Subject: Re: LF: activity > On 6 Dec 2003 at 12:42, hamilton mal wrote: > > > I saw GI8AYZ on QRS testing yesterday with a good strong audible > > signal, also OM2TW on QRS audible. Why QRS with good strong signals > > perfectly workable on CW. A lot of LF ops have deserted the band > > because lack of normal CW, some years back when the 136 khz band > > started, there was an abundance of CW and most managed to make a QSO. > > QRS is useful when everything else fails, but surely it is more > > sensible to try CW for a fast QSO first instead of a method that takes > > ages to exchange a signal report. The majority of QRS activity that I > > observe is unnecessary because the signals are perfectly audible and > > workable on CW, even signals from antennas in small back gardens are > > perfectly audible here. Improving the station with more TX output and > > a more efficient antenna is a better approach than the LAZY MANS CW > > I guess I am among those who have deserted the band for this among > other reasons. If we are to encourage new users then normal CW should > be the first step and they will progress to digital modes later if > they so desire. I regret the move to QRSS and beaconing which leaves > the casual listener with nothing to hear. > > The increase of TV QRM and also the attractions of HF with my K2 > means that I very rarely listen on the band these days. But while I > was on I did encourage many with small gardens to have a go on lf. > > 73 Dave G3YMC > > dsergeant@btinternet.com > http://www.btinternet.com/~dsergeant > > >