Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25;
Message-ID: <52FFC3FD.2040601@freenet.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:46:05 +0100
From: wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <1392470753.4354.YahooMailNeo@web133005.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>,<52FF91E7.7030406@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <BLU180-W7288D17496E83683CA9275AC9F0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W7288D17496E83683CA9275AC9F0@phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040408040404000400000304"
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.
--------------040408040404000400000304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Bob and all,
>
> It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or 
> 73.  Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more 
> predictable on 600 meters.

I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned.

But from my experience when I was (very!) active on 136.x kHz in CW was 
that LF was actually more predictable than MF, especially at night when 
MF (over significant distances) differs from day to day, hour to hour, 
minute to minute by many dBs.
Even if you are not limited to 1 Watt ERP (which we are in this 
country), it will be difficult to compensate the QSB's dynamic range 
(for audible CW QSOs) with a brute-force amplifier.

Cheers,
   Wolf DL4YHF .


--------------040408040404000400000304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Bob and all,<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:BLU180-W7288D17496E83683CA9275AC9F0@phx.gbl"
      type="cite">
      <style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
      <div dir="ltr"><br>
        It's much easier to put a&nbsp;good sigs out on&nbsp;472 than 137 or
        73.&nbsp;&nbsp;Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more
        predictable on 600 meters. <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned.<br>
    <br>
    But from my experience when I was (very!) active on 136.x kHz in CW
    was that LF was actually more predictable than MF, especially at
    night when MF (over significant distances) differs from day to day,
    hour to hour, minute to minute by many dBs. <br>
    Even if you are not limited to 1 Watt ERP (which we are in this
    country), it will be difficult to compensate the QSB's dynamic range
    (for audible CW QSOs) with a brute-force amplifier.<br>
    <br>
    Cheers,<br>
    &nbsp; Wolf DL4YHF .<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040408040404000400000304--