Message-ID: <3C24D6A1.8B8659DE@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:53:21 +0000
From: "gii3kev" <gii3kev@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rsgb rsgb" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: JKV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

    I can read the G3JKV 1 watt beacon aurally and see it on visual but
I cannot see a trace of his 7 tone shift 5W signal above 137 khz. I can
hear and see his 7 tone shift signal with his 400 watts.
It would appear to me at this distance and beyond that the simple cw
keyed signal has more potential for low power(qrp) than any other
proposed system suggested.
The G3AQC signal on FSK (not DFSK as described, the commercial
designation for DFSK/DFS
is a signal with 4 frequency limits and not 2, amateur confusion again.
Perhaps most radio amateurs have never heard of DFS.
Considering the bandwith constraints on both 73 and 136 khz the most
efficient method is normal CW whether it be qrs or normal speed where
applicable.
John in VE1 has pointed out the problems with the G3AQC fsk signal
swamping the LF band to the detriment of others using adjacent
frequencies.
I also watched G3AQC last night and anyone else using an adjacent
frequency would have been wiped out because of the type of signal
transmitted by this station.
My suggestion as previously stated it to learn and operate conventional
CW and know your appropriate Q codes and use QRS or normal speed as
appropriate.
Piccolo or a cut down version is not appropriate for the bandwidth
available on the LF bands.
I did predict a big opening last night on 136 khz, CFH was extremely
strong, and a normal hand sent/received cw QSO was a possibility, an
oppertunity missed.

73 De G3KEV