Message-ID: <4F291CE5.9040209@talktalk.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:07:17 +0000
From: qrss <qrss@talktalk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4F2911FC.3020709@talktalk.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F2911FC.3020709@talktalk.net>
Subject: Re: LF: OPERA and QRS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4074f291d23275d
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Thanks for responses.

I have clipped the wings of the FANT0M for a try anyway, now QRS1.024

73 Eddie

On 01/02/2012 10:20, qrss wrote:
> We all seem to have agreed to compare OPERA with a QRS speed which 
> takes the same time to send a call sign, correct or not?
> A QRS beacon can send the call continuously all day and successive 
> periods are often used to establish the information.
>
> How about comparing like for like in the timing of Data Bits, OPERA 
> uses digital techniques and no doubt repeats the data in  the 4 minute 
> period of OP4. In this case we would need to be comparing it with QRS1 
> or QRS1.025 if you like.
>
> I feed a coding session coming on.
>
> 73 Eddie G3ZJO
>
>
>