MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <77fdd1d6-7e60-2f33-8c6e-98f787fe0ca8@n1bug.com>
References: <77fdd1d6-7e60-2f33-8c6e-98f787fe0ca8@n1bug.com>
From: David Bowman <davidg0mrf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:07:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+GfORvawR0cQ9F_my8w8AwAS0hp7j5tNN6o7Pz=7HFL=eUJzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Cc: "rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk" <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk>,
        "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" <lowfer@mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114d580c3130380568141ab2"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

--001a114d580c3130380568141ab2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Paul.

I believe historically this has been acceptable.

The first amateur signal to cross the Atlantic on 136kHz was on 10th Sept
2000.  That was high power at the EU end with an antenna about 200ft high
and resulted in a crossband QSO using QRSS 3 on 136k and normal CW on 20m
in Canada.

Following that, if my memory is correct there was a gap of around a few
weeks followed by some QSOs that did take more than one night. One of these
may have been the first 2-way 136k QSO. G3LDO from memory.
Mike XDV or Alan will probably recall the usual suspects of the time.

On the other hand, as we were reminded by Mal a few days ago,  in the
winter months DFCW QRSS or even JT9 will not be a problem. It's encouraging
to see your signal stable for hours at a time on the various plots.

I'm planning another remote operation from October 18 through the winter
months on 136k and 630m. Just need to collect some antenna hardware and
high voltage band switching parts over the summer.

73

David

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com> wrote:

> LF / 2200 meter community,
>
> I am a little afraid to ask this question. I don't want to start a
> "war" here. But...
>
> What is the feeling in the LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS)
> which takes more than a single night to complete? Is this OK or will
> it be seen as cheating?
>
> I am a very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason
> why a QSO spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it
> seems that's just taking advantage of available propagation and
> (very slow) modes which can get information across.
>
> I do think that if the operators stop for some nights, the QSO
> should reset to the beginning because that is a new attempt.
>
> I'm trying to find out what the community feels about this. I want
> to be a respectable member of this community, not an invading
> outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered evil, I won't
> do it. Now is your chance to educate me.
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
>
>

--001a114d580c3130380568141ab2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi Paul.<br><br></=
div>I believe historically this has been acceptable.<br></div><br></div>The=
 first amateur signal to cross the Atlantic on 136kHz was on 10th Sept 2000=
.=C2=A0 That was high power at the EU end with an antenna about 200ft high =
and resulted in a crossband QSO using QRSS 3 on 136k and normal CW on 20m i=
n Canada.<br><br></div>Following that, if my memory is correct there was a =
gap of around a few weeks followed by some QSOs that did take more than one=
 night. One of these may have been the first 2-way 136k QSO. G3LDO from mem=
ory.<br></div>Mike XDV or Alan will probably recall the usual suspects of t=
he time.<br><br></div>On the other hand, as we were reminded by Mal a few d=
ays ago,=C2=A0 in the winter months DFCW QRSS or even JT9 will not be a pro=
blem. It&#39;s encouraging to see your signal stable for hours at a time on=
 the various plots.<br><br></div>I&#39;m planning another remote operation =
from October 18 through the winter months on 136k and 630m. Just need to co=
llect some antenna hardware and high voltage band switching parts over the =
summer.<br><br>73<br><br></div>David<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, N1BUG <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:paul@n1bug.com" target=3D"_blank">paul@n1=
bug.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">LF / 2200 m=
eter community,<br>
<br>
I am a little afraid to ask this question. I don&#39;t want to start a<br>
&quot;war&quot; here. But...<br>
<br>
What is the feeling in the LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS)<br>
which takes more than a single night to complete? Is this OK or will<br>
it be seen as cheating?<br>
<br>
I am a very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason<br>
why a QSO spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it<br>
seems that&#39;s just taking advantage of available propagation and<br>
(very slow) modes which can get information across.<br>
<br>
I do think that if the operators stop for some nights, the QSO<br>
should reset to the beginning because that is a new attempt.<br>
<br>
I&#39;m trying to find out what the community feels about this. I want<br>
to be a respectable member of this community, not an invading<br>
outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered evil, I won&#39;t<br=
>
do it. Now is your chance to educate me.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
Paul N1BUG<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a114d580c3130380568141ab2--