From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@rsgb.org.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:37:43 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: LF: QSO Time
Message-ID: <3A7AC637.31696.1012345@localhost>
In-reply-to: <000001c08d15$279241a0$2b0e883e@default>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

G3KEV wrote:
>     Someone has suggested a qso would be valid if it took 24 hours. I
>     think
> this is rediculous, because it is not likely that any operator would
> continuously try for this period of time. 

So you wouldn't allow NA-Eu one night and Eu-NA the following 
night?

And if I were to work ZL on 136kHz by integrating each dot over 
several days, you wouldn't think I had made a QSO, even if I 
exchanged callsigns and reports? And this despite the fact that I and 
my QSO partner would have had to design and construct some 
extremely clever kit to do it.

The real key is: Is the QSO continuous? ie Was there a gap in time 
where conditions were such that the QSO could have been 
continued, but was not? Any other ruling would instantly outlaw 
contacts which would be possible only with very sophisticated 
techniques, and would stifle development of these techniques.

Note, though, that we don't really need rules except for awards. If I 
think I have made a contact that's good enough for me.


Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.lf.thersgb.net