MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9d58deff-f2c8-d84c-6342-6d5e7c10bda5@n1bug.com>
References: <E1eiHAz-0003yU-Pm@post.thorcom.com> <9d58deff-f2c8-d84c-6342-6d5e7c10bda5@n1bug.com>
From: David Bowman <davidg0mrf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 23:46:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+GfORtScJSrkzVWGaEgdfmH3-DWcKkN=P8zEXwZQDm2FP4JeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: MF/630M
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113acf6090734505646b8e00"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

--001a113acf6090734505646b8e00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Paul

I had a similar exchange with Bob WA1OJN a couple of weeks ago.

Here's what I said about QRSS, but I agree, JT9 should be possible although
I think you probably need -26.

If you want to let me know when you are calling CQ, I can certainly switch
the receiver to look for JT9.
It sounds easy, but I have let the RX run for a few hours on different
nights after 01.00 ....but have only seen 1 station from Europe.

Sorry about Bouvet, there's a lot of people here who have spent the last
few weeks upgrading equipment just to make 1 QSO  !

WA1OJN:  How does the ability of QRSS compare to WSPR and JT9 as far as
weak signals?  I see it is dependant upon the speed - looks like it should
be able to be comparable to WSPR at the very slow speeds.  What speeds do
you "normally" use?
G0MRF:    3 second or 5 second dots is a good place to start.   To speed up
the process, you give your full call in a CQ, then when called reduce your
ID to just the last 3 characters.
So  a QSO would go something like this:

      CQ de WA1OJN  WA1OJN k
      WA1OJN  N1BUG OO K
      N1BUG  OJN  R MM K
      OJN BUG  R 73

Note the use of moonbounce reporting rather than 599 etc.    Strong sigs
are an O report.  M is equivalent to an S4 or 5.    T  is weak and barely
readable.

WA1OJN:  Can you advise what carrier frequencies are generally used for
QRSS on 630M?
G0MRF:  (I think I said just above WSPR so people stand a chance of seeing
your CW)

73

David


On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:47 AM, N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com> wrote:

> Just think how many trans-Atlantic QSOs could be made. Some, like myself
> are very interested but the primary problem is no one awake on the east
> side of the pond at the right times!
>
> I have seen signals strong enough for normal CW only a few times. JT9
> would be easy and requires only about 3 dB more signal to decode than
> WSPR2. I am looking for information on QSO operating procedures for QRSS. I
> have only seen it used for beaconing.
>
> I've been off MF for a while as I put up a temporary HF antenna to work
> the Bouvet DXpedition and it severely messed up tuning of the MF antenna.
> Now that the Bouvet trip has been aborted I will be taking that antenna
> down and returning to MF as soon as I get a reasonable weather window. I
> will likely be on MF for a week or so before moving to LF.
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
>
>
>
> On 02/04/2018 05:05 AM, mal hamilton wrote:
>
>> Last nite results good but not unusual, had reports from
>>
>> AA1A, KA1R, VE1YY
>>
>> Transatlantic contacts seem a regular occurrence at present on MF between
>> the UK and N.America
>>
>> Most operators are using WSPR but more CW both normal and QRSS would be
>> welcome like it used to be some years ago, ie real QSO mode
>>
>> 73 de mal/g3kev/io94sh
>>
>
>

--001a113acf6090734505646b8e00
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Hi Paul<br><br></div>I had a simi=
lar exchange with Bob WA1OJN a couple of weeks ago.<br><br></div>Here&#39;s=
 what I said about QRSS, but I agree, JT9 should be possible although I thi=
nk you probably need -26.<br><br></div>If you want to let me know when you =
are calling CQ, I can certainly switch the receiver to look for JT9.<br></d=
iv>It sounds easy, but I have let the RX run for a few hours on different n=
ights after 01.00 ....but have only seen 1 station from Europe.<br><br></di=
v>Sorry about Bouvet, there&#39;s a lot of people here who have spent the l=
ast few weeks upgrading equipment just to make 1 QSO=C2=A0 !<br><br>
<font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=3D"black"><fon=
t size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=3D"black"><div>WA1=
OJN:=C2=A0
 How does the ability of QRSS compare to WSPR and JT9 as far as weak
signals?=C2=A0 I see it is dependant upon the speed - looks like it should =
be
 able to be comparable to WSPR at the very slow speeds.=C2=A0 What speeds d=
o
you &quot;normally&quot; use?<br>

<font color=3D"red"><font size=3D"2">G0MRF:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 3 second or 5=
 second dots is a good=20
place to start.=C2=A0=C2=A0 To speed up the process, you give your full cal=
l in a=20
CQ, then when called reduce your ID to just the last 3 characters.<br>

So=C2=A0 a QSO would go something like this:<br>

<br>

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 CQ de WA1OJN=C2=A0 WA1OJN k<br>

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 WA1OJN=C2=A0 N1BUG OO K<br>

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 N1BUG=C2=A0 OJN=C2=A0 R MM K<br>

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OJN BUG=C2=A0 R 73<br>

<br>

Note the use of moonbounce reporting rather than 599 etc.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
 Strong sigs
 are an O report.=C2=A0 M is equivalent to an S4 or 5.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 T=
=C2=A0 is weak and=20
barely readable.</font></font><br>

</div>


<div><br>

</div>


<div>WA1OJN:=C2=A0 Can you advise what carrier frequencies are generally us=
ed for QRSS on 630M?=C2=A0 <br>G0MRF:=C2=A0 (I think I said just above WSPR=
 so people stand a chance of seeing your CW)<br><br>73<br><br></div><div>Da=
vid<br></div></font></font>

<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun,=
 Feb 4, 2018 at 10:47 AM, N1BUG <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pau=
l@n1bug.com" target=3D"_blank">paul@n1bug.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just think how many trans-Atlantic QSOs could be=
 made. Some, like myself are very interested but the primary problem is no =
one awake on the east side of the pond at the right times!<br>
<br>
I have seen signals strong enough for normal CW only a few times. JT9 would=
 be easy and requires only about 3 dB more signal to decode than WSPR2. I a=
m looking for information on QSO operating procedures for QRSS. I have only=
 seen it used for beaconing.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ve been off MF for a while as I put up a temporary HF antenna to work=
 the Bouvet DXpedition and it severely messed up tuning of the MF antenna. =
Now that the Bouvet trip has been aborted I will be taking that antenna dow=
n and returning to MF as soon as I get a reasonable weather window. I will =
likely be on MF for a week or so before moving to LF.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
Paul N1BUG<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 02/04/2018 05:05 AM, mal hamilton wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Last nite results good but not unusual, had reports from<br>
<br>
AA1A, KA1R, VE1YY<br>
<br>
Transatlantic contacts seem a regular occurrence at present on MF between t=
he UK and N.America<br>
<br>
Most operators are using WSPR but more CW both normal and QRSS would be wel=
come like it used to be some years ago, ie real QSO mode<br>
<br>
73 de mal/g3kev/io94sh<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113acf6090734505646b8e00--