Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20001204112148.21b7844e@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 11:21:48
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 73kHz Activity Tonight
In-reply-to: <23351.200012011346@gemini>
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>

Hello group,

I saw Jim (M0BMU) with a solid 'O' beaconing on 71.65kHz friday night. I
could heard the signal going on and off, but QRM/QRN was to bad for a
normal CW copy.

John (G4CNN) seemes to have improved his station, while I had some
difficulties in reading him during our QSO a few days ago he was a solid
'O' and would have been a 329 in CW during his QSO with PA0BWL.

On sunday morning F5MAF was a good 'O' copy, until there started a never
ending QSO straight on top of Marc (the QSO included exchange of output
power). Both stations were clearly audible with me (one 559 and the other
even a lot stronger) and based on their locations they should have heard
each other at least at the same strength.
I know that the therapeutic value of QRSS is highly appreciated by some,
but should QRSS not in the first place be a mode one uses to work stations
that cannot be worked on faster modes (CW) ?
Nothing against these long and strong signal QRSS QSOs, but to avoid that
ones therapy becomes anothers frustration it might be usefull to keep the
137700-137800Hz segment for real weak signal contacts (keeping QSOs short)
and have a ragshew or therapeutic segment arround 137600Hz.

73, Rik  ON7YD