From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <98.10d27793.27c48b87@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:09:59 EST
Subject: Re: LF: QRS software
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

In a message dated 2/20/01 10:24:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be writes:

<<  Is anyone currently using the QSK facility ? 
 The combination of QSK and precise timing will cause some major changes in
 the programme (and some extra hours of work). I am willing to keep the QSK
 facility if there is some interest in this option, otherwise I will abandon
 QSK.
 In case you want me to keep the QSK option, please let me know. >>

I hate to cause a fellow programmer to have to endure hours of extra work, 
but I would very much encourage keeping the QSK facility.

As dot lengths get longer and longer, it seems to me the QSK facility MUST 
eventually be used, or we'll reach the point where even the simplest signal 
report will exceed the length of likely QSB maxima.

Just as it took nearly two years for QRS to catch on over here, it may take 
even a while longer for the true value of the QSK feature to be widely 
recognized.  But I am convinced that it will eventually happen.

73,
John