Message-ID: <004801c08d3b$ae50ed60$4400bed4@be047304>
From: "Sommereyns Ruddy" <ruddy.sommereyns@village.uunet.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000001c08d15$279241a0$2b0e883e@default>
Subject: LF: Re: TR QSO TIME
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:14:18 +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>

Hi Mal,

You also can lift a weight of let's say 2000 kg (1000 pound) to a height of
1 meter, with only a small dc motor from a tape-recorder coupled to an
enormeous reduction-box..
It will only  take several years, but it can be done. The design
,construction and testing is the the achievement but for the rest it is
totally useless.

73

Ruddy
----- Original Message -----
From: MAL HAMILTON <MAL@g3kev.freeserve.co.uk>
To: rsgb <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: LF: TR QSO TIME


>     Someone has suggested a qso would be valid if it took 24 hours. I
think
> this is rediculous, because it is not likely that any operator would
> continuously try for this period of time. So for one signal to be copied
at
> a particular time and a reply that came 24 hours later would not be valid
as
> far as I am concerned.
> I would agree that a qso on slow morse could take a few hours during a
> session and that would be acceptable but to call back next day with a
reply
> is stupid and not credible.
> The next suggestion by some will be a week long qso!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This
is
> hardly state of the art communications and puts the clock back, dont
suppose
> it ever took anyone 24 hours plus to have a two way contact even druing
the
> pioneering days!!!!!!!!
> Not sure about smoke signals but I do not think so, they were probably
> faster than slow morse.
>
> G3KEV
>
>
>
>