Message-ID: <00c201cb918e$e7177990$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> <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4CF68745.5070104@telus.net> <00ac01cb918d$4ff45520$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:35:25 -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


Experience from this end on MF  dictates that my sunrise is optimum fo=
r
VE7/W7/W6 and KL7. I have worked many over the years.
Do you have the FIREPOWER
De G3KEV

----- Original Message -----
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers


> OM
> I will fire up but is your CW up to scratch? You will hear me but wi=
ll I
be
> able to hear you?
> I want callsigns exchanged and not O X O procedure
> de g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Tilley" <sthed475@telus.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
>
>
> So Mal
>
> Why are you not calling CQ then?  I'm listening!!
>
> Stop talking and start radiating some of that mind numbing ERP you=
 have.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 12/1/2010 5:06 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
> > I have some nice pics of my signal a few years back being received=
 TA at
> > QRS 3 on 137 Kcs also 500 Kcs last year.
> > also NC1K was able to copy G3KEV and MM0ALM on normal CW in the pa=
st.
> > When there was an abundance of acty on 137 a few years ago I could=
 copy
> the
> > USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW.
> > For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and ele=
vated
> > antenna will do the trick without a struggle. There is no need for=
 QRS
> > slower than 30 sec dot.
> > VE1JG was a big player in the past along with VE1ZZ and both  able=
 to
copy
> > my CW
> > Many TA QSO'S have taken place in the past when there was lots of=
 acty
> from
> > the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especiall=
y
around
> > this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband us=
ually
> for
> > me on 7 Mcs because they did not have a permit for 137
> > At the present time some seem to be RE-INVENTING the wheel, obviou=
sly
not
> > reading past history about LF.
> > 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 fo=
r 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=
 the
> >>> pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this gro=
up).
> >>>
> >>> The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting wi=
th a
> >>> path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
> >>> information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time th=
e
> >>> conditions must hold up.
> >> When was the last real QSO done in QRSS>=3D 30? I rember the cont=
act
> >> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
> >> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon=
 mode.
I
> >> have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
> >> So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matte=
r if
> >> there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often mos=
t 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=
 the
DX
> >> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
> >> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO me=
ans
> >> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can ch=
ange
> >> 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 enoug=
h 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 resu=
lt in
> >>> useful propagation data.
> >>>
> >> Done.
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Mike, G3XDV
> >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>>
> >> 73, Stefan
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>