Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+JT9\-10\s+vs\s+JT9\-5\s+test\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+JT9\-10\s+vs\s+JT9\-5\s+test\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. LF: JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:14:12 -0500; Local weather and snow/ice conditions have improved enough to transmit on 2200m. I am running a JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test on 136.395 kHz (136.000 'dial' plus 395 Hz audio). All reception reports will be u; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00101.html (11,696 bytes)
2. Re: LF: JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: "dhchurch"<[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:48:34 +0000; Hello Paul Conditions improved towards dawn. I only ran JT9-10 as I run WSPR2, WSPR15 & Opera together as well and don't normally know what the latest trend is. Considering there is a 200ft limestone; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00147.html (10,700 bytes)
3. Re: LF: JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:54:55 -0500; Hi Michel, Are you sure about settings for JT9-5? There is the period 0620 - 0720z which looks as if JT9-5 should have been OK. Thanks for the report! 73, Paul N1BUG On 1/14/19 4:59 AM, Michel Brunel; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00169.html (15,590 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]