Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: LF Activity - G3XIZ
From: wolf_dl4yhf <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:46:05 +0100
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]
Delivered-to: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
Hello Bob and all,

It's much easier to put a good sigs out on 472 than 137 or 73.  Countless new modes to use and band conditions much more predictable on 600 meters.

I agree as far as PEP-versus-ERP is concerned.

But from my experience when I was (very!) active on 136.x kHz in CW was that LF was actually more predictable than MF, especially at night when MF (over significant distances) differs from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute by many dBs.
Even if you are not limited to 1 Watt ERP (which we are in this country), it will be difficult to compensate the QSB's dynamic range (for audible CW QSOs) with a brute-force amplifier.

Cheers,
  Wolf DL4YHF .





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