Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:02:19 -0230 (NDT)
From: jcraig@mun.ca
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <003a01cd8e17$f3e02f00$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1209082100020.910@plato.ucs.mun.ca>
References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com>
 <504BCD96.2010901@freenet.de> <003a01cd8e17$f3e02f00$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna
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


Hi Jay, Group.

RX is now on 472.5 kHz and TX QRV on 1825.  Lets hope they resume=20
operations.

73
Joe

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote:

> Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period?
>
> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "wolf_dl4yhf" <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna
>
>
>> John,
>>=20
>> you wrote:
>>=20
>> >
>> Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD callin=
g=20
>> CQ too. I assume neither station can hear each other?
>> <
>>=20
>> Of course I could hear DK0SWF calling CQ about 100 Hz away. But I had gi=
ven=20
>> up, finally, after trying for the umpteenth time to get a response from=
=20
>> them. As Mal and others already noted, their signal was incredibly stron=
g,=20
>> but they must have had a very, very serious problem with their receiver.=
=20
>> Maybe they should have asked the SWF (S=FCdwestfunk) to close down some =
of=20
>> the transmitters in their vincinity ? Oh well. Hope the pilots in Poland=
=20
>> were not too irritated by the powerful signal, which even beat DK7FC's=
=20
>> signal by far !
>>=20
>> Despite all the trouble, I was positively surprised to make a QSO with=
=20
>> OM1II, whom I heard earlier on, but didn't want to add to the confusion =
on=20
>> the semi-official "calling frequency" (472.5 kHz). Also thanks to G3KEV,=
=20
>> DK8KW, DJ2LF, and DF5QF for the nice QSOs. OZ7FOC was partly audible, bu=
t=20
>> difficult tonight.
>>=20
>> 73,
>>   Wolf  DL4YHF / DF0WD
>>=20
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are unable=
 to=20
>>> receive efficiently on their antenna, they call CQ?
>>>=20
>>> Surely if this is a "one time" opportunity to transmit from "SWF" and=
=20
>>> reception is impossible they could do something else with the time on t=
he=20
>>> air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of time would gather much=
=20
>>> more usefuly information than calling CQ with no hope of hearing any=20
>>> replies?
>>>=20
>>> John
>>> GM4SLV
>>> IP90gg
>>> Shetland Isles
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>
>
>
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php