Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:14:01 +0100 Received: from ptb-spamcore02.plus.net ([192.168.71.3]) by pih-mxcore05.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v1.0) id 1DRZ3x-0007x6-4l for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:14:01 +0100 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DRZ8r-0001DH-Rk for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:19:05 +0100 Received: from [192.168.101.78] (helo=pih-mxcore12.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1DRZ8r-0001DE-Oe for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:19:05 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by pih-mxcore12.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v1.0) id 1DRZ3w-0004S9-Mh for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:14:00 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1DRZ3q-0004Gu-PD for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:54 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1DRZ3q-0004Gl-Dc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:54 +0100 Received: from smtpout02-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.165.194]) by relay.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRZ3o-0001oh-Rl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:54 +0100 Received: (qmail 28693 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 17:13:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (208.37.242.34) by smtpout02-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.194) with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2005 17:13:49 -0000 Message-ID: <004b01c54ce0$6e08c160$8d01a8c0@JKA> From: "John Andrews" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <427256DA.5010507@freenet.de> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:25:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 64.202.165.194 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of w1tag.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: TA APR 28/29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; 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-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Wolf, I would vote for a selection of 15 or 30 minutes for a QSO format. When Dex and I did the original WOLF QSO, we worked on a 30 minute basis. Since the GUI wasn't available, that was 20 minutes of recording, and 10 minutes for playback, analysis and coding of the next message. At 15 or 30 minutes with the GUI, short and long haul QSO's could be accommodated. It would be MUCH easier now! Lest anyone despair about the long times involved, it would take 15 minutes to send the string "PARIS PARIS PAR" at QRSS7. Considering that our messages include numbers, the throughput would be better. Dave's "G3YXM 300W WOLF" from last night would have to have been sent faster than QRSS5. John Andrews