From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:50:05 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4229F14D.12369.DB4AB1@localhost>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: LF: Slow mode comparisons
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

This morning, I worked a new station for me (No:103), DL3ZID. He 
first called me on DFCW3, but was impossible to read. He then changed 
to QRSS3 which was an improvement, but not 100%. A change to QRSS10 
gave a really clear easy-to-read signal. I took screenshots which are 
on my web site, and these clearly show the difference between the 
three modes. With marginal signals, I believe that DFCW is slightly 
poorer than QRSS at the same dot length, because of the added 
complication of the two frequencies, each of which may have QRM that 
might be a 'dot'. 

I think this may be the first time that these three modes have been 
compared in this way with a 'live' marginal signal. If DL3ZID reads 
this reflector, my thanks for the QSO and for the opportunity for 
this comparison.

See the pics at:
http://lf.apersonalguide.co.uk

Mike, G3XDV
===========