Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:05:24 -0400
From: "'Geri' Kinzel, DK8KW" <DK8KW@compuserve.com>
Subject: LF: QRN vs. QRNN
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Message-ID: <199905091305_MC2-750A-E4C8@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hello Lowfers,

I found the follwoing in the ARRL Letter Online 
(Volume 18, Number 19 of May 7, 1999):

----------------------------- quote
-------------------------------------------------

QRN vs QRNN? A member recently asked about the distinction
between QRN and QRNN. A search of our QST database via the
ARRLWeb Members Only page revealed the source of this made-up
Q-signal. It appeared as a Stray in the August 1931 issue of QST:

"W6KX suggests a new abbreviation, QRNN, meaning man-made static,
power leaks, etc. The difference between QRNN and plain QRN is that
the former may let up in a short time, while the latter, when bad, usually
lasts for some hours." 

Our Spring 1931 edition of the Callbook revealed
that W6KX, since reissued, was held in 1931 by Keith LaBar of
Hollywood, California. The term reportedly has limited currency today
on the amateur bands and in SWL circles. 

--------------------------- unquote
----------------------------------------------

Does'n this sound familiar to us who are active on longwave? Seems thay
had those problems already sixty years ago.

Best 73

Geri, DK8KW (W1KW)
http://www.dk8kw.home.pages.de