Message-ID: <4CF685CC.6030401@telus.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:28:44 +0000
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <004201cb916a$6326d000$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
In-Reply-To: <004201cb916a$6326d000$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Subject: Re: LF: QRS SPEED
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080703000206000902080603"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--------------080703000206000902080603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mal

What do you know... Answer, nothing useful to this discussion.

You have no experience using long dot lengths or paths outside the small 
confines of EU on LF where it's easy to preach your BS as it only works 
because of the density of stations...

Also your preaching about much power and huge vertical antennas is not 
relevant.  Once you reach a certain point say the 1W ERP limit we are 
all equal. So the only multipliers left is integration and operator 
practice using long integration technologies.

Alas, this is what burns you up as you have no skill in these areas and 
when you try you end up working the neighbour's toaster oven as your 
comical attempt to copy Stefan on 9KHz demonstrated...

It's too bad you're the type of dog that can't be taught new tricks...

So rather than waste BW on the reflector spend some time TRYING to work 
some real DX at say the 12000km or 7100km range and then post some 
meaningful comments.  You'll find that your worn bag of tricks won't work.

73 Scott







On 12/1/2010 3:14 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
> LF/MF
> Like I have said many times before. QRS speeds of 3 or 10 are usually 
> sufficient and maybe 30 in extreme cases but speeds of 120, 240 and 
> slower are not useful because of QSB and QRM hits breaking up the 
> trace and producing misleading results.
> in fact even faster CW is useful for an ID under poor or bad fading 
> conditions.
> Use as much power as possible and a good elevated antenna  to overcome 
> path fading and qrm. QRP signals are vy prone to QSB whereas the QRO 
> signals make it to DX destinations.
> Grabbers running at vy slow speeds are not useful
> de mal/g3kev

--------------080703000206000902080603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"        http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    Mal <br>
    <br>
    What do you know... Answer, nothing useful to this discussion.<br>
    <br>
    You have no experience using long dot lengths or paths outside the
    small confines of EU on LF where it's easy to preach your BS as it
    only works because of the density of stations...<br>
    <br>
    Also your preaching about much power and huge vertical antennas is
    not relevant.&nbsp; Once you reach a certain point say the 1W ERP limit
    we are all equal. So the only multipliers left is integration and
    operator practice using long integration technologies.<br>
    <br>
    Alas, this is what burns you up as you have no skill in these areas
    and when you try you end up working the neighbour's toaster oven as
    your comical attempt to copy Stefan on 9KHz demonstrated...<br>
    <br>
    It's too bad you're the type of dog that can't be taught new
    tricks... <br>
    <br>
    So rather than waste BW on the reflector spend some time TRYING to
    work some real DX at say the 12000km or 7100km range and then post
    some meaningful comments.&nbsp; You'll find that your worn bag of tricks
    won't work.<br>
    <br>
    73 Scott<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    &nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    On 12/1/2010 3:14 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:004201cb916a$6326d000$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf"        type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;          charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name="GENERATOR">
      <style></style>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">LF/MF</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Like I have said many times
          before. QRS speeds of 3 or 10 are usually sufficient and maybe
          30 in extreme cases but speeds of 120, 240 and slower are not
          useful because of QSB and QRM hits breaking up the trace and
          producing misleading results.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">in fact even faster CW is useful
          for an ID under poor or bad fading conditions.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Use as much power as possible and
          a good elevated&nbsp;antenna &nbsp;to overcome path fading and qrm. QRP
          signals are vy prone to QSB whereas the QRO signals make it to
          DX destinations.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Grabbers running at vy slow
          speeds are not useful</font></div>
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">de mal/g3kev</font></div>
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------080703000206000902080603--