Message-ID: <005e01cb917c$d4b33e40$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4CF65D62.21930.96EDB2@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CF672A2.6040506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 17:26:03 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Stefan
You are late on the scene regarding 137 Kcs.
In the past active stations used proper CQ and FULL CALLSIGN and some=
 still
do at QRS 3. After initial contact with full callsign then each statio=
n just
uses the suffix only. This has been the established procedure.
I do notice more recently that some stations are only using ONE LETTER=
 as
you say and this is incorrect but of course if using the full callsign=
 at
QRS 120 or 240 it takes a LONG LONG time also the call gets garbled wi=
th QSB
and QRM, again a case for higher speeds as already discussed.
All the experienced operators who knew how to communicate on LF have=
 left
for other bands and in some case just BEACON and seldom go into QSO mo=
de.
I do not bother at present although I have a fully equipped 137 Kcs
transmitter/amplifier home built capable of working TA, the one used=
 in the
past  also 2 x Decca 5501 transmitters modified for 137 plus suitable
antennas.
de mal/g3kev



----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers


> Hi Mike,
>
> Yes, some thoughts:
>
> Am 01.12.2010 15:36, schrieb Mike Dennison
> > I believe the danger is to regard this as the 'optimum' speed for=
 DX
> > working, simply because the S/N ratio is good.
> Is that really a danger?
> >   In practice, there is
> > another factor in play. There is often rapid and deep fading on a=
 DX
> > path, often resulting in only parts of letters being received at=
 this
> > speed, even though the peak signal is quite strong (see many of th=
e
> > pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this group=
).
> >
> > The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting with=
 a
> > path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
> > information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time the
> > conditions must hold up.
> When was the last real QSO done in QRSS >=3D 30? I rember the contac=
t
> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mod=
e. I
> have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
> So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matter=
 if
> there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often most=
 of
> the nights. If the G would be lost (X_J)and in the next turn the J=
 would
> be lost (XG_), anyway everbody would know it't (XGJ). Furthermore th=
e DX
> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO means
> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can chang=
e
> the RX to the wanted QRSS/DFCW mode.
> Anyway, i am providing both QRSS-60 and QRSS-120 for TA and EU, so
> people may chosse what they like :-)
> > Take a look at VE7TIL's excellent DCF39
> > graph to see how short a good DX opening usually is - perhaps an=
 hour
> > if you are lucky.
> ...which wouldn't be enough for a (real) QSO in QRSS-60 but enough=
 for
> "FC" or "NM" or "NI" in QRSS-120.
> >
> >
> > The very few who have had transatlantic QSOs have used QRSS30 or=
 at
> > most QRSS60. I am not aware of a successful two-way involving a
> > longer dot length.
> >
> > I would suggest that DX beacons and grabbers use a =3Dmaximum=3D=
 of 60s
> > dot length (though a second grabber screen could be provided for=
 120
> > etc if desired). In my opinion this would be more likely to result=
 in
> > useful propagation data.
> >
> Done.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Mike, G3XDV
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
>
> 73, Stefan
>