Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:20:45 +0000
Message-ID: <43D394A4.9020000@w1tag.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:20:20 +0000
From: John Andrews <w1tag@w1tag.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000a01c61e71$5d31f290$2101a8c0@pcroelof> <43D32FBF.31838.31CE0D@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <43D32FBF.31838.31CE0D@localhost>
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS elements
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Mike,

Let me backtrack, as I didn't state the situation fully in yesterday's 
message. I was not trying to equate DFCW with 90 second elements to 
QRSS30! The issue is only about appearance on the screen. Most of the 
Argo shots I've seen of the 137.778 window have been set to 30 second 
dots, SLOW. This mode sharpens things up a bit, and gives a longer 
screen time. But a signal only made up of 30 second elements, such as 
DFCW, looks a little "thin." <g> So I've been lengthening the elements 
for the "XES" callsign to 90 seconds, and the result has looked good on 
these screens. It also better fits the hours-long screens that Hartmut 
produces. Given the preponderance of dots in "XES", the length of the 
callsign is similar to QRSS30.

That's all...I wasn't attempting to make any statement about the 
equivalence of the data rates.

John Andrews, W1TAG

>  
>