Message-ID: <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4CF65D62.21930.96EDB2@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CF672A2.6040506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 17:06:24 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


I have some nice pics of my signal a few years back being received TA=
 at
QRS 3 on 137 Kcs also 500 Kcs last year.
also NC1K was able to copy G3KEV and MM0ALM on normal CW in the past.
When there was an abundance of acty on 137 a few years ago I could cop=
y the
USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW.
For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and elevate=
d
antenna will do the trick without a struggle. There is no need for QRS
slower than 30 sec dot.
VE1JG was a big player in the past along with VE1ZZ and both  able to=
 copy
my CW
Many TA QSO'S have taken place in the past when there was lots of acty=
 from
the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especially ar=
ound
this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usuall=
y for
me on 7 Mcs because they did not have a permit for 137
At the present time some seem to be RE-INVENTING the wheel, obviously=
 not
reading past history about LF.
de Mal/G3KEV


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers


> Hi Mike,
>
> Yes, some thoughts:
>
> Am 01.12.2010 15:36, schrieb Mike Dennison
> > I believe the danger is to regard this as the 'optimum' speed for=
 DX
> > working, simply because the S/N ratio is good.
> Is that really a danger?
> >   In practice, there is
> > another factor in play. There is often rapid and deep fading on a=
 DX
> > path, often resulting in only parts of letters being received at=
 this
> > speed, even though the peak signal is quite strong (see many of th=
e
> > pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this group=
).
> >
> > The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting with=
 a
> > path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
> > information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time the
> > conditions must hold up.
> When was the last real QSO done in QRSS >=3D 30? I rember the contac=
t
> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mod=
e. I
> have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
> So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matter=
 if
> there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often most=
 of
> the nights. If the G would be lost (X_J)and in the next turn the J=
 would
> be lost (XG_), anyway everbody would know it't (XGJ). Furthermore th=
e DX
> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO means
> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can chang=
e
> the RX to the wanted QRSS/DFCW mode.
> Anyway, i am providing both QRSS-60 and QRSS-120 for TA and EU, so
> people may chosse what they like :-)
> > Take a look at VE7TIL's excellent DCF39
> > graph to see how short a good DX opening usually is - perhaps an=
 hour
> > if you are lucky.
> ...which wouldn't be enough for a (real) QSO in QRSS-60 but enough=
 for
> "FC" or "NM" or "NI" in QRSS-120.
> >
> >
> > The very few who have had transatlantic QSOs have used QRSS30 or=
 at
> > most QRSS60. I am not aware of a successful two-way involving a
> > longer dot length.
> >
> > I would suggest that DX beacons and grabbers use a =3Dmaximum=3D=
 of 60s
> > dot length (though a second grabber screen could be provided for=
 120
> > etc if desired). In my opinion this would be more likely to result=
 in
> > useful propagation data.
> >
> Done.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Mike, G3XDV
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
>
> 73, Stefan
>