Message-ID: <5027D928.7080205@freenet.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:26:16 +0200
From: wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <569fd19f03994b069634810b4361b931@kabelmail.de>
In-Reply-To: <569fd19f03994b069634810b4361b931@kabelmail.de>
Subject: Re: LF: 472.5 kHz acty
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040302000009050008060201"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040302000009050008060201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Uwe,

Aaah yes, that explains all. I was a bit irritated by that transmission 
because stations from southern germany were calling CQ in normal CW 
about 100 Hz up in frequency. The signal was completely overloading my 
receiver's frontend.
I didn't consider reading the signal as "inverse QRSS keying".

IMVHO, beaconing test in this precious (because otherwise un-QRMed) 
frequency range (472.3 to 472.7 kHz) should be kept as short as 
possible. Which doesn't mean I propose a bandplan.

All the best,
   Wolf .


Am 12.08.2012 17:46, schrieb uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de:
> Hello Wolf,
>
> I received DL5DBT on 472.43kHz extremly strong in QRS3 beacon mode but 
> - but negativ (!)  keying at the time you mentioned.
> read the gaps as key down and you will find that callsign.
>
> GL
> Uwe/dj8wx



--------------040302000009050008060201
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Uwe,<br>
      <br>
      Aaah yes, that explains all. I was a bit irritated by that
      transmission because stations from southern germany were calling
      CQ in normal CW about 100 Hz up in frequency. The signal was
      completely overloading my receiver's frontend. <br>
      I didn't consider reading the signal as "inverse QRSS keying".<br>
      <br>
      IMVHO, beaconing test in this precious (because otherwise
      un-QRMed) frequency range (472.3 to 472.7 kHz) should be kept as
      short as possible. Which doesn't mean I propose a bandplan.<br>
      <br>
      All the best,<br>
        Wolf .<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      Am 12.08.2012 17:46, schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de">uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de</a>:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:569fd19f03994b069634810b4361b931@kabelmail.de"
      type="cite">
      <div style="margin: 5px;padding:0;font-family: Arial; font-size:
        13px;">Hello Wolf,<br>
        <br>
        I received DL5DBT on 472.43kHz extremly strong in QRS3 beacon
        mode but - but negativ (!)  keying at the time you mentioned.<br>
        read the gaps as key down and you will find that callsign. <br>
        <br>
        GL<br>
        Uwe/dj8wx<br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040302000009050008060201--