Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+\[600MRG\]\s+JT9\-10\s+vs\s+JT9\-5\s+test\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+\[600MRG\]\s+JT9\-10\s+vs\s+JT9\-5\s+test\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:00:08 +0000; Hello Paul, I will monitor both modes overnight on 136kHz dial and report in the morning. In JT9-10 I had 5 copies of R7NT so far (QRB 2505km). 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T __________________________________; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00128.html (10,931 bytes)
2. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 08:42:11 +0000; Hello Paul, Alex, below my overnight JT9-10 copies . Not a single copy in JT9-5. The last copy of Paul (so far) was at 08.00 UTC, in broad daylight. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T 2240 -36 -0.6 405 X R7NT KN97; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00137.html (13,155 bytes)
3. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 06:52:37 -0500; Hello Rik, Thanks for this report. It is interesting you did not decode me on JT9-5 since some of the JT9-10 reports indicate the signal was strong enough. Perhaps just the timing of QSB. I did recei; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00143.html (16,247 bytes)
4. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:12:35 +0000; Hello Paul, far less than the previous night: 0550 -34 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0100 -36 -0.8 395 X VVV N1BUG X 0120 -37 -0.9 395 X VVV N1BUG X 0540 -35 -0.8 395 X VVV N1BUG X 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ____; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00162.html (13,933 bytes)
5. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:44:14 -0500; Thanks Rik, Geoff, Michel, Chris and all who have been sending reports! I will continue for 24 hours more. Of course, a big thank you to Rik for your hard work bringing these exciting modes back to u; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00168.html (13,241 bytes)
6. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:12:00 +0000; Hello Paul, there was another (and even better) band opening after I left for work (6 UTC): 0550 -34 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0710 -33 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0730 -29 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0750 -33 -0; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00177.html (15,898 bytes)
7. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:17:09 -0500; Hello Rik, Thanks for the new report! I am transmitting JT9-10/5/2/1 again tonight. Same as before, all on 136.395. 73, Paul N1BUG; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00178.html (14,986 bytes)
8. LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 06:19:53 +0000; Hello Paul, your 136kHz TA copies for last night (14/15 January): 0010 -35 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0030 -35 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0050 -32 -0.8 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0110 -29 -0.9 395 5 VVV N1BUG 5 0130; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00180.html (17,198 bytes)
9. Re: LF: Re: [600MRG] JT9-10 vs JT9-5 test (score: 1): Author: Geoff G0LUJ <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:51:39 +0000; 19-01-15 00:18 0018 -26 -0.6 396 1 VVV N1BUG 1 19-01-15 05:58 0558 -25 -0.6 395 1 VVV N1BUG 1 19-01-15 06:18 0618 -25 -0.5 395 1 VVV N1BUG 1 19-01-15 00:16 0016 -26 -0.6 396 2 VVV N1BUG 2 19-; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2019-01/msg00181.html (12,921 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]