Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <65AECDF1F89AD411900400508BFC869F0D7594@pdw-mail-1.dera.gov.uk>
From: "Talbot Andrew" <ACTALBOT@dera.gov.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: RE: QSO Time
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:10:31 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

4 hours is not at all an unreasonable period for a valid QSO, especially
when we are using a bandwidth of  2 minutes ^ -1

I once took 45 minutes to complete a QSO on 10GHz using CW repeated
continuously both ways.    If QSO time is considered to be proportional
to carrier frequency, that equates to 10368 / 0.137 * 45 / 60/24/365.25
= 6.47 years at LF

Alternatively, comparing bandwidths (assume an effective 400Hz aural
bandwidth for the scattered microwave signal), it equates to 45 * 400Hz
/ 0.008Hz / 60 / 24 / 365.25 = 4.3 years.

So 24 hours at 0.008Hz bandwidth on 137kHz calculates back up to around
2.3 seconds in a 300Hz CW bandwidth.  Who can manage a complete report
exchange on CW in that time ?

It is Friday afternoon again   :-<>

'JNT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Dennison [mailto:mike.dennison@rsgb.org.uk]
> Sent: 2001-02-02 14:38
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: LF: QSO Time
> 
> 
> G3KEV wrote:
> >     Someone has suggested a qso would be valid if it took 
> 24 hours. I
> >     think
> > this is rediculous, because it is not likely that any operator would
> > continuously try for this period of time. 
> 
> So you wouldn't allow NA-Eu one night and Eu-NA the following 
> night?
> 
> And if I were to work ZL on 136kHz by integrating each dot over 
> several days, you wouldn't think I had made a QSO, even if I 
> exchanged callsigns and reports? And this despite the fact that I and 
> my QSO partner would have had to design and construct some 
> extremely clever kit to do it.
> 
> The real key is: Is the QSO continuous? ie Was there a gap in time 
> where conditions were such that the QSO could have been 
> continued, but was not? Any other ruling would instantly outlaw 
> contacts which would be possible only with very sophisticated 
> techniques, and would stifle development of these techniques.
> 
> Note, though, that we don't really need rules except for awards. If I 
> think I have made a contact that's good enough for me.
> 
> 
> Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
> http://www.lf.thersgb.net
> 
> 


-- 
The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, 
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is
prohibited and may be unlawful.