Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <4592EEBD.1050703@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:07:57 +0000
From: Peter Dodd <g3ldo@ukonline.co.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000901c721c3$1ce9eb60$62e8fc3e@g3kev> <458BACE1.18178.2E59C5@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <458BACE1.18178.2E59C5@localhost>
Subject: Re: LF: 136 CW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Mike Dennison wrote:
> I have also made several CW calls with little success. However, when 
> I was called by F6BWO I could not read him because of the chatter 
> from Rugby Loran which is 100km away. In the past, I have had several 
> successful CW QSOs with F6BWO. By contrast, he is a very good signal 
> (dogbones) on QRSS where Loran does not affect readability unless a 
> signal coincides with a Loran line.
>   
In the early days of 136kHz, when most of the contacts were on CW, copy 
could be hard work down here on the South Coast. The  distance from here 
to the Loran station at Lessay is about 160km (sea path). When the  
TS-850 was tuned to 136kHz and the IF passband to 2.7kHz the S-meter 
read S8 due to the Loran sidebands.
The S meter level dropped sharply as IF filters were switched in but 
problems were caused by the interaction of the filter to the strong 
pulse signals. In some cases improved readability was obtained with a 
wide IF bandwidth.
Modern receivers with digital IF selectivity might be better in this regard.
I gave up listening on 136kHz CW because of tinnitus.

Regards

Peter, G3LDO