Hello Scott ,
Just a word : oui , oui ,oui ;-) ;-) ;-)
73 Jean-Pierre f1afj
Le 24/12/2010 09:30, Scott Tilley a écrit :
Gee Mal with all that SKILL I wonder why we haven't seen you here yet?
The only QRM I see is the constant BS beacon from Scarborough on this reflector. Too bad you don't beacon your drivel on
2200m as even if the content was your usual high level of nonsense it may help establish the viability of unproven paths.
But that would require real SKILL to do it... And you lack it.
Now speaking to the real hams on the reflector...
Personally, I don't care what someone sends as long as their doing something on the band with some aim. If they choose to
send a signal char to conduct an experiment so what? Usually there's someone in the know on the other end anyway...? A
single char transmitted at a precise time and QRG is really a source encoded signal and very handy for testing an extreme path
like G/VE7. But that's a concept lost on poor old Mal.
I found a handshake process of sending the suffix useful as a way of beginning a QSO sequence for extreme DX QSOs. We even
used a single letter as a means of testing prop on the VE7/ZL path. Both stations would alternate sending the first letter in
their call. Then upon receipt the the station would change from sending their letter to the letter copied. This if copied by
the other station would start a full call exchange at usually a higher speed...
The JAs and I evolved this into using the suffixes in 15min RX/TX cycles. Once we had the QSB patterns mapped we completed a
QSO.
Unlike high speed ditty dotty dementia exchanges, slow speed exchanges require a much deeper level of study as you're not
committing to a couple minutes (more like seconds) of focus, but an entire night, week of nights or months of nights...! I
personally know the toll that takes on family, work and everything else so testing before you commit to the grueling slog is
critical.
73 Scott
VE7TIL
On 12/24/2010 2:29 AM, mal hamilton wrote:
I am not the only one that has expressed an opinion about a proper ID
procedure on LF. Address your remarks to all concerned also stick to the
subject, we are not discussing rubber stamp QSO'S. Have you heard a QSO
taking place with each station using single Letter Callsigns ? then the
guessing game via emails Who was that sending an X , W or a P
Any fool can transmit a machine generated bandslip Beacon but a two way hand
send morse QSO requires SKILL
Beacons used on a narrow band like LF are but unattended QRM generators
interfering with those trying to engage in two way communications.
I cannot say that I have heard you on LF or MF so curious why you are so
interested in what is going on ????
g3kev
----- Original Message -----
From: "g4gvw"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
Mal,
For many of us who, while licensed radio amateurs, are mainly interested
in the behaviour of the spectrum and the medium via which signals are
propagated, beacons at UHF, VHF, HF, MF, LF et. al. have for many years
been a perfectly acceptable and legitimate resource. We don't need to
dictate an ID protocol to those generous of their time who provide them.
All we need to know (ideally in advance) is how to identify the resource
and its location together with a few technical details. At that point
most of us are possessed of enough innate and inherent wit to engage our
grey matter and draw such conclusions as may be appropriate. These
skills are often of more import than the need to achieve a highly
regulated and often "rubber-stamped" exchange whose main aim seems to
require that some variety of "points-table" is constantly updated with
an increasing number!
I wish for Christmas SANITY - and Please May It extend THROUGHOUT 2011
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 18:10 +0000, mal hamilton wrote:
We do not need Beacons on LF this is the problem also why do Appliance
Operators on LF need to deviate from the procedures used on all the
other
amateur bands, who ever heard of single letter Beacons on HF, in fact
Beacon
operators on HF need special permission.
Radio Operators on the other hand in QSO mode on any band do not have
this
problem
g3kev
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
I Suggested a timed beacon system, a long time ago , similar to
the
g3plx 5 meg monitoring system , where stations simply took an
available
time slot and transmitted a long pulse ... monitoring software
then
simply looked in the slots and gave a real time s/n reading ,
also
enabled stations could be in rx mode during there 'off' period
....
Then wspr appeared .......game over ..or is it ...
So what about a timed beacon system that uses allocated time slots
and
the monitoring system keeps track or who is using which slot ..
what a strange idea .. but for LF may have big advantages
All on the same frequency -so no problem with Ae Q / B/W leaving
the
band open for other modes
NO need for silly long tx periods , melting station accessories
ONLY needs rudimental time lock
OH and one little oversight .. all you need is a -CW-
transmitter ,
no frequency shift keying , no audio to rf translation ,
Down side . needs some one to write the control software
........in
fact
Andy , ran the basic idea on 500 for quite a while , using -one-
of
the three time slots of the g3plx system, with Gary providing a
off-air
on line monitor 200 miles north
G
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Chris"<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:20 AM
To:<[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
Hi Rik,
The idea is fine. But, the problems I have with this are (1)
Stations
don't always notify us who they are and what they are up to (Mike,
G3XDV,
is a perfect example of how it should be done, keeping us FULLY
informed),
and (2) is where I agree with Stefan, what about listeners (lookers)
who
are not on this refelector? Two letters are of little use to them. I
know
two stations near me who look on 137 but are not on here - for
various
reasons.
You just can't beat a full callsign, even if you do sometimes only
get
snatches of it. As it is, stations are often 'identified' by
frequency
with very dubious visual evidence!
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik Strobbe"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: LF: RE: Full ID
Hello Mike, all,
for propagation test purposes (sound much better than beaconing) all
we
need is an unambiguous identification. A single character will lead
to
confusion, but 2 characters should do the job.
So what about using the 2 last characters of the callsign ?
That would make most ID's more or less of the same length.
G3XDV would use "DV", OR7T would use "7T", DF6NM would use "NM" and
so
on.
I cannot see any conflicts right now (= 2 stations active in
propagation
tests with identical 2 last characters).
Is national law requires a full id it can always be send in 12WMP
CW.
73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
________________________________________
Van: [email protected]
[[email protected]] namens Mike Dennison
[[email protected]]
Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 2010 17:52
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: LF: Full ID
OK, it seems that most people want full suffixes to be sent. I
believe I had good reasons to use a short ID, but I am happy to go
along with the majority view.
Of course the final straw was Mal threatening not to talk to me!
Beacon tonight (in addition to, and not instead of, real QSOs) will
be on 136.177kHz, 'XDV' synchronised with the start of each hour.
73 de Mike
========
--
73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
qth nr felixstowe uk
(east coast, county of suffolk)
|
