Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82691 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 20:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan03.plus.net) (212.159.14.237) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 20:17:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 79558 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 20:17:43 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore03.plus.net (212.159.14.217) by ptb-mxscan03.plus.net with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 20:17:42 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1BD7sE-000KZP-K2 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:17:42 +0100 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BD7rb-0000nc-TF for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:17:03 +0100 Received: from [213.232.95.59] (helo=relay.salmark.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BD7rb-0000nT-Fn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:17:03 +0100 Received: from mail.kuban.ru ([62.183.66.246]) by relay.salmark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BD7rY-0005nr-FZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:17:00 +0100 X-Fake-Domain: sam3 Received: from sam3 (62.183.41.10.dsl.kuban.ru [62.183.41.10]) by mail.kuban.ru (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id i3CKGqU8006221 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:16:52 +0400 (MSD) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:17:37 +0400 From: rn6bn X-Suspect-Bulk-Mailer: The Bat! X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.46d) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <11813483140.20040413001737@73.ru> To: Vernall In-reply-To: <006901c420c9$4200f1d0$e901a8c0@bob2l2u6k2n1g3> References: <20040411053239.NYFR13120.web4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> <007101c41f87$3ce0ada0$e901a8c0@bob2l2u6k2n1g3> <11050987609.20040411095712@73.ru> <009101c42003$f14afa30$e901a8c0@bob2l2u6k2n1g3> <173612248082.20040412112534@dx.ru> <006901c420c9$4200f1d0$e901a8c0@bob2l2u6k2n1g3> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: TW_TN=0.077 Subject: Re: LF: a trace of RN6BN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 1 Hello Bob! Agn tnx for try RX my signal. This in the night I shall try DFCW120 in this time and frequency. 73! I go to sleep now. Tuesday, April 13, 2004, 12:03:41 AM, you wrote: V> Sam RN6BN, V> Last night was not so productive, only a trace received in a capture at 1636 V> UTC. Nil in all other captures. V> Commenting on QRSS vs DFCW, for beaconing the main benefit of DFCW is that V> it has a higher "duty cycle" as it avoids the "long gaps" between characters V> and words. Key up time does little for receiver S/N. Also the frequency V> shift can be useful to distinguish a wanted signal from coherent QRM. For V> DX beaconing into ZL, I suggest DFCW120. For an attempted QSO, DFCW is much V> more productive as it makes much better use of time windows. Our next V> booking at ZL6QH/ZM2E is 19 June, so it seems yopu have time to build a good V> receiving antenna, hi hi. V> For testing tonight, I suggest using DFCW120. V> 73, Bob ZL2CA -- Best regards, Sam, rn6bn mailto:rn6bn@73.ru