Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990311194044.006e8f04@mailer.inrete.it>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:40:44 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "M. Bruno" <spin@inrete.it>
Subject: Re: LF: QRSs
In-reply-to: <1999031115053268199@zetnet.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

At 15.05 11/03/99 GMT, you wrote:
> Rik,  ON7YD suggested the following method of reporting in SCW  and 
>this seems to have been adopted by all operators using this mode
>
>
>>    T = too weak to read (so longer dotlength required)
>>    M = weak but sufficient for a QSO
>>    O = 100% readable
>
>Rik also suggested the following additions
>
>>    S = strong enough to shorten dotlength
>>    A = strong enough to be copied in normal CW
>
>What tends to happen in practice is that if the signal is audible 
>then a RST report is sent. 
>If it is sent in the form, say '42N' (the N being a delimiter rather 
>than a tone) I cannot see anything wrong with that.
>It has been suggested that to use four dashes _ _ _ _. This could be 
>used to say 'the signal is audible and reduce the dot size if you 
>want to get the QSO over a bit quicker'.
>
....
>
>The simplest solutions are nearly always the best.
>
Agreed. Maybe a step between 'O' and RST is desirable.
I propose to use 'T','M','O','OS' (sent only one time), or '43N'.
If you receive 'OS' you should shorten the dot time. 
Next question: how short? I think that a step of 3 times is OK,
so from 3 sec to 1 sec.


73 de IK1ODO Marco

Rivalta, ITALY JN35SA (N 45 01' 25.6", E 7 31' 09.4")