Message-ID: <4CF73EFE.7040105@telus.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 06:38:54 +0000
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4CF65D62.21930.96EDB2@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CF672A2.6040506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4CF68745.5070104@telus.net> <00ac01cb918d$4ff45520$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
In-Reply-To: <00ac01cb918d$4ff45520$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hey Mal

Sure my CW is up to whatever you are likely to get here on this path. =20
The question is your operating skill up to scratch due to the extreme=20
conditions on this path?  Can you even calibrate a sound card, produce a=
=20
DFCW signal etc?

No one has proved that it is even possible to heave a signal over the=20
pole to VE7 yet.  Are you willing to do that by conducting some=20
exploratory tests (note I didn't say beacon).

I can produce a 1W EIRP signal that's all that matters and I have wire=20
coming next week for a new even larger loop aimed at EU.

All QSOs I have had on 2200m no matter the dot length have been with the=
=20
exchange of FULL calls and reports using as a minimum EME QSO=20
guidelines.  Unlike most HF QSOs that often require next to no more=20
information exchanged other than some incoherent beeping at each other...

Had we observed your O X O procedure VA7LF would have the DX record with=
=20
ZM2E...! What we proved was that we could do it when the prop=20
cooperated.  With my JA tests we completed a QSO.

So if you're up to a real experiment and adventure I'm willing to try a=20
true exchange with you. But my terms are you need to open your mind and=20
be willing to 'play nice' with me and everyone else and together we'll=20
do the seemingly impossible and communicate over the pole with amateur=20
equipment on 2200m.

If this is some form of chest pounding exercise I believe there is DX=20
now on 27MHz so please QSY where you'll fit in better...

73 Scott










On 12/1/2010 7:24 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
> OM
> I will fire up but is your CW up to scratch? You will hear me but will=
 I be
> able to hear you?
> I want callsigns exchanged and not O X O procedure
> de g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Tilley"<sthed475@telus.net>
> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
>
>
> So Mal
>
> Why are you not calling CQ then?  I'm listening!!
>
> Stop talking and start radiating some of that mind numbing ERP you have.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 12/1/2010 5:06 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
>> I have some nice pics of my signal a few years back being received TA=
 at
>> QRS 3 on 137 Kcs also 500 Kcs last year.
>> also NC1K was able to copy G3KEV and MM0ALM on normal CW in the past.
>> When there was an abundance of acty on 137 a few years ago I could copy
> the
>> USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW.
>> For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and elevated
>> antenna will do the trick without a struggle. There is no need for QRS
>> slower than 30 sec dot.
>> VE1JG was a big player in the past along with VE1ZZ and both  able to=
 copy
>> my CW
>> Many TA QSO'S have taken place in the past when there was lots of acty
> from
>> the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especially aro=
und
>> this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usually
> for
>> me on 7 Mcs because they did not have a permit for 137
>> At the present time some seem to be RE-INVENTING the wheel, obviously=
 not
>> reading past history about LF.
>> de Mal/G3KEV
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer"<Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
>> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
>>
>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Yes, some thoughts:
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2010 15:36, schrieb Mike Dennison
>>>> I believe the danger is to regard this as the 'optimum' speed for DX
>>>> working, simply because the S/N ratio is good.
>>> Is that really a danger?
>>>>     In practice, there is
>>>> another factor in play. There is often rapid and deep fading on a DX
>>>> path, often resulting in only parts of letters being received at this
>>>> speed, even though the peak signal is quite strong (see many of the
>>>> pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this group).
>>>>
>>>> The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting with a
>>>> path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
>>>> information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time the
>>>> conditions must hold up.
>>> When was the last real QSO done in QRSS>=3D 30? I rember the contact
>>> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
>>> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mode.=
 I
>>> have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
>>> So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matter if
>>> there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often most of
>>> the nights. If the G would be lost (X_J)and in the next turn the J wou=
ld
>>> be lost (XG_), anyway everbody would know it't (XGJ). Furthermore the=
 DX
>>> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
>>> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO means
>>> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can change
>>> the RX to the wanted QRSS/DFCW mode.
>>> Anyway, i am providing both QRSS-60 and QRSS-120 for TA and EU, so
>>> people may chosse what they like :-)
>>>> Take a look at VE7TIL's excellent DCF39
>>>> graph to see how short a good DX opening usually is - perhaps an hour
>>>> if you are lucky.
>>> ...which wouldn't be enough for a (real) QSO in QRSS-60 but enough for
>>> "FC" or "NM" or "NI" in QRSS-120.
>>>> The very few who have had transatlantic QSOs have used QRSS30 or at
>>>> most QRSS60. I am not aware of a successful two-way involving a
>>>> longer dot length.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest that DX beacons and grabbers use a =3Dmaximum=3D of=
 60s
>>>> dot length (though a second grabber screen could be provided for 120
>>>> etc if desired). In my opinion this would be more likely to result in
>>>> useful propagation data.
>>>>
>>> Done.
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Mike, G3XDV
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>
>>> 73, Stefan
>>>
>>
>
>
>