Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:38:41 -0230 (NDT)
From: jcraig@mun.ca
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <504BD80C.90207@freenet.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1209082236080.4047@plato.ucs.mun.ca>
References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com>
 <504BCD96.2010901@freenet.de> <003a01cd8e17$f3e02f00$6401a8c0@JAYDELL>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1209082100020.910@plato.ucs.mun.ca> <504BD80C.90207@freenet.de>
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


Thank-you Wolf.

Unfortunately only QRN has been heard on 472.5 so far.

73
Joe

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, wolf_dl4yhf wrote:

> Hello Joe,
> rrr - but their RX frequency is 3544 kHz now.
>
> 73,
>  Wolf .
>
> Am 09.09.2012 01:32, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca:
>> Hi Jay, Group.
>>=20
>> RX is now on 472.5 kHz and TX QRV on 1825.  Lets hope they resume=20
>> operations.
>>=20
>> 73
>> Joe
>>=20
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote:
>>=20
>>> Does anyone know if they will be operating during the overnight period?
>>>=20
>>> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> ----- 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
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> John,
>>>>=20
>>>> you wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> >
>>>> Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD call=
ing=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=
=20
>>>> given up, finally, after trying for the umpteenth time to get a respon=
se=20
>>>> from them. As Mal and others already noted, their signal was incredibl=
y=20
>>>> strong, but they must have had a very, very serious problem with their=
=20
>>>> receiver. Maybe they should have asked the SWF (S=FCdwestfunk) to clos=
e=20
>>>> down some of the transmitters in their vincinity ? Oh well. Hope the=
=20
>>>> pilots in Poland were not too irritated by the powerful signal, which=
=20
>>>> even beat DK7FC's 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 confusio=
n=20
>>>> on the semi-official "calling frequency" (472.5 kHz). Also thanks to=
=20
>>>> G3KEV, DK8KW, DJ2LF, and DF5QF for the nice QSOs. OZ7FOC was partly=20
>>>> audible, but difficult tonight.
>>>>=20
>>>> 73,
>>>>   Wolf  DL4YHF / DF0WD
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are unab=
le=20
>>>>> to 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=
=20
>>>>> the air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of time would gather=
=20
>>>>> much more usefuly information than calling CQ with no hope of hearing=
=20
>>>>> any replies?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> John
>>>>> GM4SLV
>>>>> IP90gg
>>>>> Shetland Isles
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=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=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