From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@btinternet.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:12:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3FD1F1C0.26180.1D5756B@localhost>
In-reply-to: <001001c3bbf6$9ba16360$94d1fc3e@l8p8y6>
Content-Description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: LF: activity
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

On 6 Dec 2003 at 12:42, hamilton mal wrote:

> I saw GI8AYZ on QRS testing yesterday with a good strong audible
> signal, also OM2TW on QRS audible. Why QRS with good strong signals
> perfectly workable on CW. A lot of LF ops have deserted the band
> because lack of normal CW, some years back when the 136 khz band
> started, there was an abundance of CW and most managed to make a QSO.
> QRS is useful when everything else fails, but surely it is more
> sensible to try CW for a fast QSO first instead of a method that takes
> ages to exchange a signal report. The majority of QRS activity that I
> observe is unnecessary because the signals are perfectly audible and
> workable on CW, even signals from antennas in small back gardens are
> perfectly audible here. Improving the station with more TX output and
> a more efficient antenna is a better approach than the LAZY MANS CW

I guess I am among those who have deserted the band for this among 
other reasons. If we are to encourage new users then normal CW should 
be the first step and they will progress to digital modes later if 
they so desire. I regret the move to QRSS and beaconing which leaves 
the casual listener with nothing to hear.

The increase of TV QRM and also the attractions of HF with my K2 
means that I very rarely listen on the band these days. But while I 
was on I did encourage many with small gardens to have a go on lf.

73 Dave G3YMC

dsergeant@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~dsergeant