Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Sat, 07 May 2005 15:55:41 +0100 Received: from ptb-spamcore01.plus.net ([192.168.71.1]) by pih-mxcore11.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v1.0) id 1DUQiT-0000ts-EM for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sat, 07 May 2005 15:55:41 +0100 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DUQnw-000Pxn-JS for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sat, 07 May 2005 16:01:20 +0100 Received: from [192.168.101.74] (helo=pih-mxcore08.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DUQnw-000Pxk-HD for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sat, 07 May 2005 16:01:20 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by pih-mxcore08.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v1.0) id 1DUQiT-0000DV-12 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sat, 07 May 2005 15:55:41 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1DUQhg-0002PT-ET for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 15:54:52 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1DUQhg-0002PK-30 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 15:54:52 +0100 Received: from smtpout01-04.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.165.79]) by relay.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DUQhe-0007Am-HF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 07 May 2005 15:54:52 +0100 Received: (qmail 13671 invoked from network); 7 May 2005 14:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (68.116.172.18) by smtpout01-04.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.79) with ESMTP; 07 May 2005 14:54:44 -0000 Message-ID: <004a01c5530c$56e6b3c0$0500a8c0@charter.net> From: "John Andrews" <w1tag@w1tag.com> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <427CC4F3.3050805@freenet.de> Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:54:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 64.202.165.79 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of w1tag.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: LF: Re: Suggestion: Two-way test in WOLF BPSK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Wolf, I have been reluctant to suggest this, as the U.S. Part 5 experimental stations are not running in the Amateur service. Several of us, XES included, have authorizations for 2-way communication with Amateur stations. But nobody knows whether the CT, DL, G, etc. governments would permit communication outside of the Amateur service. I believe this was an issue with the 60 meter band when the U.S. guys were running under an Experimental service license. That aside, tonight would not be a good choice here, due to weather and other committments. John Andrews, W1TAG