Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31479 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 08:35:21 -0000 Received: from warrior.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.227) by mailstore with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 08:35:21 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 2740 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 08:35:24 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 08:35:23 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 19cLEL-0000kr-W8 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:13 +0100 Received: from [194.73.73.81] (helo=tungsten.btinternet.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19cLEG-0000ki-Gp for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:08 +0100 Received: from host213-122-41-1.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.41.1] helo=dave) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #23) id 19cLEA-0000OL-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:03 +0100 From: "Dave Sergeant" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:34:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3F13CAA0.11570.B24004@localhost> In-reply-to: <001501c34a40$4c6bc740$6507a8c0@Main> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-Description: Mail message body Subject: Re: LF: Re: PROP PREDICTIONS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTESversion=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-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 On 14 Jul 2003 at 20:43, Alan Melia wrote: > Hi all, I totally agree with Mal's comments. I have also chatted at > length with the guys who produce the HF predictions and they worry a > lot about their work actually discouraging people from putting signals > out. The HF Propagaion reports are quite difficult because it really > depends what kind of a station you have. I remember when I ran 400W > PEP and a 3el beam at 45 feet I worked bands after they had "closed" > and often was "the only European" when I called in. (the problem is > that it gets boring after a while). I did find the predictions a > useful guide to what "should" be happening, but there is no subsistute > for listening for a beacon and putting out a call or two The IARU contest this weekend was a good example of this. Those with big stations could still work a fair amount of dx, but even those runing 100W were moaning of poor conditions on HF, and at this station with 5W and a long wire it was decidedly hard work, with very little dx even heard. And that was during a major international contest where all the bands should be jam packed with USA stations, the few Ws I heard were pretty weak. I rarely consult the propagation predictions. When the bands are wide open they are unduly pessimistic, and when poor they only serve to tell me what I would be hearing if I had a decent set up. The only way is to listen on the bands often when you get a very good feel of what you should be hearing on a particular band at a particular time of day. Of course if there is no activity then you will hear nothing. This is perhaps even truer at LF where activity is non existant in many cases. But perhaps as Mal comments that elusive 'real CW' transatlantic QSO cannot be that far away. 73 Dave G3YMC dsergeant@btinternet.com http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk