Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: Re: QRSS on 500 kHz

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: QRSS on 500 kHz
From: "Dave Sergeant" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 06:38:22 +0100
Delivered-to: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <002701c7a000$549ba880$0401010a@acer3f31164f8b>
References: <[email protected]>, <002701c7a000$549ba880$0401010a@acer3f31164f8b>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
On 27 May 2007 at 13:42, Mike McAlevey wrote:

> Mal,
> 
> >This LMCW mode is not used on any other amateur band, so why 500
> 
> QRSS is widely used on 40m and especially 30m and sometimes on all the
> other HF bands. It allows most enjoyable QRPP contacts between
> stations with minimal antenna space. 
> 
> Mike ZL4OL

This needs qualifying. Yes, I gather there are some people using QRSS 
on these bands. They specifically use microwatt type power levels so 
the casual listener doesn't hear them at all, and they are 
concentrated on one or two spot frequencies in a band far wider than 
our LF allocations. To say they are 'widely used' is perhaps 
stetching it just a little.

It depends what you call enjoyable. I have lots of pleasure with 5W 
of QRP on HFand normal CW. I am not sure I would find a QSO taking 
the best part of an hour with minimal factual content a particularly 
enjoyable experience, but obviously there are some who do.

On the subject of power levels, signal levels around the UK on 500kHz 
with 100mW erp shows there is little real need for 1-10W erp except 
for longer distance - the vast majority are already at least 579, 
some even 599. I myself have managed a few QSOs with 3mW erp in an 
'impossible' qth, I don't consider myself disadvantaged, rather I 
have a few things to improve.

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>