Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Frequency\s+separation\:\s+Normal\s+CW\s+operation\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Frequency\s+separation\:\s+Normal\s+CW\s+operation\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation (score: 1): Author: "Steve Rawlings" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:45:13 +0100; Over the past month, I had become aware that a certain G-station - new to LF, but with a very commanding signal on 136.53 kHz - was often heard to 'clobber' QSOs, and CQ calls from other stations. Th; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-06/msg00077.html (9,181 bytes)
2. LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation (score: 1): Author: "Andy Talbot" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:17:00 +0100; I advised the operator that we tend to assume a receive IF bandwidth of 250 Hz and generally aim to maintain a 300 Hz separation from other stations. (I believe that 300 Hz has been the figure quoted; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-06/msg00079.html (9,169 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation (score: 1): Author: "Rik Strobbe" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:20:27; But with the fancy new receivers now available (which I'll probably never be able to afford!), does the Group still feel 300 Hz to be a reasonable separation for normal CW operation? Over 10% of the; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-06/msg00085.html (9,995 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]