Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20325 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 17:55:36 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 17:55:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 18019 invoked by uid 10001); 25 Mar 2003 17:55:36 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 17:55:35 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 18xsdZ-0001YG-OW for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:55:01 +0000 Received: from [206.173.118.93] (helo=uhura.concentric.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 18xsdU-0001Y5-K6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:54:56 +0000 Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi.concentric.net [206.173.118.71]) by uhura.concentric.net [Concentric SMTP Routing 1.0] id h2PHssi21798 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from jka ([208.37.242.34]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.9.1a+patch) id MAA23951; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:54:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000f01c2f2f9$49d3f000$09dc9384@jka> From: "John Andrews" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <003801c2f2f3$e0614140$1b00a8c0@dellboy> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:06:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: Comparison of QRSS speed performance. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.8 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCESversion=2.51 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.51 (1.174.2.5-2003-03-20-exp) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Dave, > I did some tests today with Alan G3NYK at about 220km distance, to compare > the performance of different QRSS speeds under real band conditions. How > much better is QRSS60 than QRSS10 or QRSS3... or CW? > Find out our findings at http://www.wireless.org.uk/signoise.htm Quite close to the results I got on a "closed circuit" test with a small xmit loop at my own site: http://www.lwca.org/library/articles/w1tag/1qrss.htm Nice to know that these things work out in the real world. John Andrews, W1TAG