Message-ID: <005701c3deb6$9715ac60$fe79a8c0@PCVONWALTER>
From: "Walter Staubach" <walter.staubach@fen-net.de>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:03:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Marek and others
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hallo Marek,
      tnx fer info. Ok abt ur high noise level. So let`s try with the loop.
Abt our report system:
My proposal: If one can hear the station, he should give "A" or "Ax" (A for
audible), or "Sx" (as usual).
The "O" is then included and not necessary to transmit, because an audible
signal must always be "O" on the screen.  What do the others think?
73   Walter DJ2LF

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Marek SQ5BPM <sq5bpm@wp.pl>
An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Datum: Montag, 19. Januar 2004 13:23
Betreff: Re: LF: Marek and others


>> Hallo to you,
>>        saw Marek yesterday mostly O, sometimes M.
>> Several calls, but no response.
>
>Sorry Walter, I didn't have a single trace of your signal in Argo.
>
>Maybe next time I will have the receiving loop ready, which hopefully will
>improve the RX on my side: even though I hardly tried, I couldn't hear
>RU6LWZ on CW (sorry Ed). SP5ZCC in principle is not the best place for low
>bands due to QRMs - we are in the middle of an 18000 city and Warsaw is
just
>a few kilometers away. It gets only worse as the time passes...
>
>> So with RU6LA, who
>> was stronger than Marek. Had QSO with Teo,
>> YU7AR, was audible most time with 25uV/50ohms,
>> ufb.
>
>YU7AR is usually audible here also (not yesterday though), I wonder if he
>can _hear_ our signal?
>
>Just BTW: Is there a simple common way to send the expression "audible" as
>an addition to the report during the QSO? I didn't find any info... If both
>stations send it, it would be a good opportunity to try CW. Sending the
word
>"audible" is long and not practical. Something like four dashes instead of
O
>would do, but... :-) Any ideas? Maybe "O!" ? Exclamation mark is not an
>international CW character and does not work in QRSS (even as a comma). So
>maybe a full-stop: "O." ? Or "O" followed by a number indicating the
audible
>strength? Or just "O" and then "Sx" where x is a number? It would really
>make things easier! Talking via the Internet is not the way I like. Sorry
if
>discussion alike has already happened on the reflector.
>
>> The 137.xx is a crazy band. For me it seems to be the
>> best way with a lot of work not to make a QSO, hi.
>
>Hard not to agree...
>
>> 73   Walter DJ2LF
>
>73! Marek SQ5BPM
>
>