Message-ID: <4CF68745.5070104@telus.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:35:01 +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: <4CF65D62.21930.96EDB2@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CF672A2.6040506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
In-Reply-To: <005001cb917a$15cb1720$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


So Mal

Why are you not calling CQ then?  I'm listening!!

Stop talking and start radiating some of that mind numbing ERP you have.

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 elevated
> 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 co=
py
> 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 arou=
nd
> this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usually=
 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 no=
t
> 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 the
>>> 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 contact
>> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
>> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mode.=
 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 woul=
d
>> 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 means
>> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can change
>> 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 60=
s
>>> 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
>>
>
>