Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28879 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 17:51:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2002 17:51:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 28045 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 17:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2002 17:51:21 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16sTvJ-0004PM-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:26:29 +0100 Received: from www.gardaol.com ([195.223.232.51] helo=netregister.it ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16sTvI-0004PH-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:26:28 +0100 Received: from ik2dedlibero (brescia26.phoenix.it [213.82.97.90]) by netregister.it (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g32HmMQ03688 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:48:22 +0200 Message-ID: <004001c19f0d$ce5ee000$5a6152d5@it> From: "Giulio Scaroni" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3CA889BF.5C1C6110@netscapeonline.co.uk> Subject: LF: Re: Weekend Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 05:16:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Mal wrote: > There was a lot of QRS acty this weekend on 137.7 khz. All of the > stations active from around EU and Russia were perfect aural copy with > me. This acty went on all day long, but to no avail, no QSO'S took place > while I was listening and watching. As far as I am concerned QRS is only > necessary if NORMAL CW fails. All of the stations I have worked before > except RU6LWZ and this station peaked at 599 in the evening. Normal CW > was more appropriate on this occassion and if a QSO had taken place it > would only require a few minutes at the most and not take all day. > A QRS QSO takes up less bandwidth but if you consider the time to make a > QSO, in reality a normal CW QSO requires less time and consequently less > band occupancy. > As it happens QRS did not work this weekend and normal CW probably would > have succeeded > and not cluttered up the band. I needed attenuation on the RX most of > the time the signals were so strong. > I only use QRS when others listening for me do not have facilities to > copy normal CW for various reasons. > 73 de Mal/G3KEV Mmmhhh, not all the station live in quite rural area, so many times is impossible copy normal CW, but only qrss, this happens also here in my station, sometimes i listen well, sometimes not so well. Like i use the monitor also in qrss, if my signal is audible on normal cw, the other station may call me in normal cw, this will appear on the my screen, and may be in loudspeaker, so the qso if is possible will be do. So, usually i prefer call in qrss for all the station, but no problem to answer in normal cw, if i listen the other station!! 73 de IK2DED Giulio. Your signal is usually 549 aural cw here Mal!!!!