Message-ID: <D983E9A4014C464B88F0CD70FB6966AA@mal>
From: <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <8a85a7a8-7a1b-f38c-3581-88701aeaf955@n1bug.com> <7D4519A0433A4F14A3D049E57B75A728@gnat> <6654fd57-9c36-a3e4-4acf-650dda972796@n1bug.com> <1UQPrtKflc.2KyOHzTCoMH@optiplex980-pc> <5AB264D6.9040004@posteo.de> <5AB266D1.7050808@posteo.de> <d500b27c-cda3-543c-1dc9-2051e6e64dce@n1bug.com> <5AB29E03.8090204@posteo.de> <dd06ea5b-3f56-998a-f5fb-96aec54cb46c@n1bug.com>
In-Reply-To: <dd06ea5b-3f56-998a-f5fb-96aec54cb46c@n1bug.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:42:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: LF: Re: 2200m Trans-Atlantic QSO dream...
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Paul
Try a real QSO XBAND IE

You TX on 137 Khz using  JT9, QRSS, DFCW etc and when I observe your signal 
I will reply on 472.5, 1820, or any other freq 7030 Khz
A QSO in real time
This would be more exciting than BEACON mode
This is what I used to do in the old days before the USA had a permit for LF 
es MF . I would TX on 137 Khz and RX 1830 or 7030 Khz and it  worked well.


de MAL/G3KEV


-----Original Message----- 
From: N1BUG
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 8:34 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 2200m Trans-Atlantic QSO dream...

Hi Stefan,

I will be watching the DF6NM grabber along with several others tonight.

I need a better receive antenna for Europe, but I can only build one
this year (it also has to be low cost). I have to make some decision
about what it should be.

When I have high static it usually causes some smearing of the
signal on the spectrogram. I didn't see any of that on Jay's
capture. It could be just some problem that is created by my
receiver. I will have to investigate it.

I will stay with DFCW60 tonight, but might change to 90 in next
night(s).

73,
Paul


On 03/21/2018 02:01 PM, DK7FC wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Jay was (and is!?) using a cardioid antenna poiting to the east for that
> reception, which is certainly a big advantage.
> But how high or low the noise has been, you don't see it on that
> spectrogram. A dark noise background does not indicate low QRN, it is
> just the setting of the brightness slider in SpecLab.
>
> Unfortunately i'm QRMing my own LF RX due to my regular VLF
> transmissions. But the DF6NM grabber is just 175 km more distant and is
> active at http://www.df6nm.de/grabber/Grabber.htm
>
> 73, GL, Stefan
>
> PS: Using DFCW-90 may be a bit more easy to interprete on the
> spectrograms. My transmission was in DFCW-90.
>
>
>
> Am 21.03.2018 15:45, schrieb N1BUG:
>> Wow, Stefan and Jay, that is amazing. I get an impression Jay's
>> static level was fairly low at the time of that capture. Mine is
>> never low in March, which suggests my receive antenna may be not so
>> good. I believe Jay was using directional antennas. I just have a
>> low noise vertical.
>>
>> I am setting up to transmit DFCW tonight. My intended target is
>> DFCW60 on 137.779 but final details will not be available for a few
>> hours. I will begin testing now. When I am sure I know what I am
>> doing and have all settings correct, I will make another announcement.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/21/2018 10:06 AM, DK7FC wrote:
>>
>>> PS: This capture was taken on Jay's side of course.
>>>
>>> And just to get an impression, with 25 dB SNR in 28 mHz you can
>>> transfer a 100 character EbNaut message in 5 minutes and have a
>>> spare 6 dB.
>>> A QSO is quickly done then. I mean a real QSO, like "Hello Paul, how
>>> are you? You are 10 dB above the decode limit. The WX is fine here,
>>> just a bit cold."
>>>
>>> 73, Stefan
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.2018 14:57, schrieb DK7FC:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jay, Paul,
>>>>
>>>> I still have the 12 captures from these 12 months. It was 2012. In
>>>> attachment is the image from March. Almost exactly 6 years old!
>>>> Time is running!