Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19991222105501.2edf4262@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:55:01
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: qrss
In-reply-to: <385FCB8C.D5F2F511@netscapeonline.co.uk>
References: <199912201532_MC2-91D7-FE0A@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

At 18:48 21/12/99 +0000, G3KEV wrote:
>Hi Geri. Qrss is discouraging experimenters from improving their antennas,
>receivers and associated equipment to make a normal aural qso. It is also
>encouraging nodding off (sleeping) during the hours that it takes to get a
MMM.
>OOO, OXO etc
>I hope the lazy mans cw will not prevail above 20 khz !!!

Hello Mal,

I am very sorry but I do not understand the reason of your anti-QRSS (or
DFCW) campaign.
First of all using exteme narrowband modes is only one way of improving the
distance you can cover, next to improving antenna and equipement. So it
will nit stop experimenters from trying to improve anything.
Also you are overestimating the duration of a QRSS QSO, it can be done in
about 30 minutes. Using DFCW, a standard QSO needs only about 10 minutes,
to be honest I have heard a lot of "normal CW" QSO's on 136kHz where due to
poor S/N the calls, reports etc. had to be repeated over and over again
resulting in a QSO duration far longer than 10 minutes. In these cases the
use of DFCW might even had speed up things.
Finally, nobody is forced to use QRSS and/or DFCW. Those who are happy with
normal CW only can do so. But those who want to experiment with new modes
should not be treated as a kind of second class hams, calling QRSS 'lazy
mans CW' is just not fair.

Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all readers of this reflector.

73, Rik