Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19144 invoked from network); 24 May 1999 20:14:18 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 24 May 1999 20:14:18 +0100 Received: (qmail 13509 invoked from network); 24 May 1999 19:17:36 -0000 Received: from punt.unica.co.uk (194.75.183.60) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 24 May 1999 19:17:36 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by punt.unica.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.00 #2) id 10m09n-0006gZ-01; Mon, 24 May 1999 20:13:04 +0100 X-Priority: 3 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04359 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 19:13:29 GMT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04355 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 19:13:27 GMT Received: from premium.inrete.it ([194.116.9.4] helo=mailer.inrete.it ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10m0OJ-0005Ac-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 24 May 1999 20:28:03 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from cel266 (pool17-005.dialup.alpcom.it [194.116.17.5]) by mailer.inrete.it (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA09969 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 21:12:45 +0200 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990524201043.0282a1dc@mailer.inrete.it> X-Sender: spin@mailer.inrete.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 20:10:43 +0100 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "M. Bruno" Subject: Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length In-reply-to: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org At 17.41 24/05/99 +0100, Mike Dennison wrote: >This makes two points: >1) What a good idea it was to have reports using just dashes. The idea originates frome the EME community. They use this system since 20 years or so ... and face signal conditions very similar to us. I am happy to have proposed this way to the LF community (this list, Oct. 99) >2) There does appear to be an advantage in a practical situation >when dot lengths are increased to 10s or so. > Agreed. It all depends from the kind of noise you have. The bench tests were done (at least in my case) on-air in a quiet evening, probably without thunderstorms around. >On the subject of QRSs, it may be useful to list a few abbreviations >which are acceptable. For instance, DJ5BV did not send QRZ? to >me, he just sent ?? which was clearly understood. A replacement >for 73 would be useful - what about just TU (meaning 'thank you' for >anyone who hasn't done HF CW recently)? > I also used "??" a couple of times. Seems good and easily understandable. Also "CU" instead of "73", Peter is right! I'm looking for skeds in QRSs for next evenings. I am QRV from approximately 1900z thru 2100z, every evening, QRM and QRN permitting. Anyone interested ? 73 to all - Marco - IK1ODO