Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19991220112345.2de71796@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:23:45
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: LF: weekend report 17-19 december 99
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

On lot of QRN this weekend, rather unusual for mid december. Also less
activivity than the weekends before, maybe a lot of Xmas shopping to do ...

Heard (CW) : PA0LEG (579), G6RO (539), G4GVC (559), ON6UX (599), DJ5DI
(559), PA0SE (589), MM0ALM (579), G3GRO (569), GI3PDN (539), ON4ZK (599),
DJ6FU (569), SM6PJX (539), DK5PT (559), DL3FDO (559), DJ1RL (529)

Seen (QRSS) : IK5ZPV (0 - 539), G0MRF (M)

I worked David (G0MRF) in a cross-mode QRSS-DFCW QSO and Ron (G6RO) in CW.
Also tried to 'break' some G's ragshewing with GI3PDN on sunday morning,
but no succes. Maybe it would be a good idea to leave a 10 or 15 second gap
during each 'over' while ragshewing, some nice DX might show up.

One remark regarding GRAM : so far I was still using GRAM 4 and on
sundaymoring I was 'playing' with GRAM 5. I had the audiogain of the RX far
open, so the soundcard was 'clipping' when I saw David calling with a
rather weak signal. When I reduced the audiolevel to about 1/4th of 'full
scale' (as I used to do with GRAM 4) David's signal was gone and I had to
increase the audiolevel again until it was close to 'clipping' before I got
the signal back on screen.
After our QSO I switched to GRAM 4 and could see David's next CQ without
problems (perfect 'O', while the best I could give with GRAM 5 was 'M').
So, despite the many 'rings and bells' of GRAM 5 (or just because of this
?) a first comparison was in favour of GRAM 4. Or maybe I just have to
optimize the parameters of GRAM 5.

73, Rik  ON7YD