Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:55:22 +0100
From: John GM4SLV <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Message-ID: <20070721115522.66615d08@lurcher.twatt.local>
In-Reply-To: <005d01c7cb83$aa54ffc0$51358351@w4o8m9>
References: <20070721094356.714734a4@lurcher.twatt.local>
	<001b01c7cb79$6fa823c0$6eccfc3e@g3kev>
	<20070721104717.6307d729@lurcher.twatt.local>
	<005d01c7cb83$aa54ffc0$51358351@w4o8m9>
Organization: The Gammy Bird
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 503.40 CW CQ from Shetland
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:41:15 +0100
"James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> Dear John,
> 
> Nil seen this morning - guess will have to wait until darkness.
> 
> I tried putting the numbers into the late G4FGQ's Grndwav3 ground-wave
> calculating software. Assuming about 660km G3KEV - GM4SLV, 100mW ERP
> (=55mW EMRP)and a sea path the whole way virtually, the received
> signal level should be about 0.7uV/m,  which might be audible on a
> quiet band. For inland stations, the ground wave losses increase a
> lot, so some sort of ionospheric propagation probably will be
> essential for a successful QSO.
> 
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
> 
> 
> 
Hi Jim & LF

Just completed the first G - GM QSO on 500kHz with Mal G3KEV

His CW was RST 569 - solid signal

His report to me was 339 so I TX'd in QRSS-3 - hand sent!! - and
received a solid "O" report

Roll on darkness!

Cheers

John