Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mi08.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mi08.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.21.131.166]) by air-db08.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDB082-86224cf6a112155; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:25:06 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi08.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0B61638000139; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PNsHj-000522-14 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:24:11 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PNsHi-00051t-IC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:24:10 +0000 Received: from out1.ip09ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.245]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PNsHg-0007pg-Rc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:24:10 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnMFAN4v9kxcHY5i/2dsb2JhbACIE5sLccQUhUcEjhA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,284,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="459007012" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.142.98]) by out1.ip09ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 01 Dec 2010 19:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: <00ac01cb918d$4ff45520$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4CF65D62.21930.96EDB2@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CF672A2.6040506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4CF68745.5070104@telus.net> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:24:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR=0.276 Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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-sid: 3039400cded04cf6a1091d44 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OM I will fire up but is your CW up to scratch? You will hear me but will= I be able to hear you? I want callsigns exchanged and not O X O procedure de g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tilley" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:35 PM Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers So Mal Why are you not calling CQ then? I'm listening!! Stop talking and start radiating some of that mind numbing ERP you hav= e. Scott On 12/1/2010 5:06 PM, mal hamilton wrote: > 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= copy the > USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW. > For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and eleva= ted > 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 ac= ty from > the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especially= around > this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usua= lly 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, obviousl= y not > reading past history about LF. > de Mal/G3KEV > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" > To: > 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 mo= de. 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= the DX >> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers. >> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO mean= s >> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can chan= ge >> 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 >> > >