Return-Path: Received: from rly-dg08.mx.aol.com (rly-dg08.mail.aol.com [172.19.151.92]) by air-dg07.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINDG074-5e34b223b6e324; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:30:45 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-dg08.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDG082-5e34b223b6e324; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:30:40 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ4ci-0006KZ-Fi for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:29:28 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ4ci-0006KQ-3G for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:29:28 +0000 Received: from lnx500.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de ([130.83.156.225]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NJ4ch-00007T-Gb for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:29:28 +0000 Received: from FILE-SERVER-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de (File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de [130.83.212.129]) by lnx500.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de (8.14.2/8.14.2/HRZ/PMX) with SMTP id nBBAnhvv014024 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:49:44 +0100 (envelope-from schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de) by FILE-SERVER-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de with AVK MailGateway; for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:25 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:21 +0100 Message-ID: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E828AC12@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> In-Reply-To: <1260444821.6353.65.camel@vaio3rd> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? Thread-Index: Acp5jU7JedRlLtPOSkaTwV6z1rGGMQAz57uw From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= To: X-AVK-Virus-Check: AVB 19.616;10.12.2009 X-PMX-TU: seen v0.99a by 5.5.8.383112, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2009.12.11.121526 X-PMX-SPAMCHECK: outgoing mail X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: LF: "Gain" between qrss3 and qrss10? X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Dear LF,=20 Does anybody know about the "gain" between QRSS3 and QRSS10 or QRSS30? I= mean, if the noise in both cases is equal, how much can I reduce my tx pw= r when switching from qrss3 to qrss10? Or isn't it possible to give such= a relation? And: Was there ever a TA QSO in QRSS3? I am new on the reflector, sri ;-) Stefan / DK7FC