Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+QSO\s+format\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:30:06 +0000
Dear Stewart, LF Group, At 02:21 18/12/2002 +0100, you wrote: There will occasionally be huge phase discrepancies, when one signal is nearly canceled because two effective paths are roughly 180 degre
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00203.html (10,718 bytes)

2. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Stewart Nelson" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:21:42 +0100
Hi Jim and all, Well, I admit to not having any solid data on the subject, and was hoping to get some feedback from the propagation experts here. The HBG signal would not be used to predict the absol
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00240.html (12,182 bytes)

3. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:20:07 +0000
Dear Stewart, LF Group, In order to serve as a pilot carrier in this way, the signal from HBG would have to be subject to exactly the same propagation effects and noise levels as G3AQC - but since th
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00257.html (10,498 bytes)

4. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Stewart Nelson" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:48:04 +0100
Hi all, I believe that you have all the elements here to make a system that can work at "any" SNR, i.e. a QSO could be completed even when propagation is poor, it would just take longer. The basic id
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00283.html (11,802 bytes)

5. SV: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:16:20 +0100
it depends on your fingers, "tnx" is usually easier to send without wrong letters than TU and TKS for operators like me 73 LA8AK -- J M Nøding, Datakvalitet, Kristiansand (Baneheia) http://tts.teleno
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00286.html (9,132 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:19:24 +0100
being The "TKS" and "73" is sent by W4DEX on 40m; I guess that will be in normal speed and not QRSS ? :) 73, Fabian dj1yfk Yes, but I was talking about ordinary EU QRSS3 QSOs. Perhaps I should have
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00291.html (10,408 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Fabian Kurz" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:46:35 +0000
On a general point about QRSS procedures, I still see 'TNX' or 'TKS' being sent, 'TU' is much shorter. Also do we need to send the very long '73'? The "TKS" and "73" is sent by W4DEX on 40m; I guess
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00293.html (9,616 bytes)

8. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:32:13 -0500
Also do we need to send the very long '73'? For the impatient, how about "ST" ;-) 73 de Markus
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00297.html (7,763 bytes)

9. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "John Andrews" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:20:08 -0500
Steve (and others): Please understand that Laurie is proposing this for a crossband QSO, where the "west end of the pond" response will be on 40 meter regular CW, not QRSS. John Andrews, W1TAG
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00298.html (9,498 bytes)

10. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:08:01 EST
Steve et al, If you're not already familiar with it, you may want to take a look at the QSO format used in 144 MHz EME. It is simpler than those used at 432 MHz or in MS work, and has evolved in orde
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00301.html (8,146 bytes)

11. Re: LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Thompson" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:03:50 +0000
On a general point about QRSS procedures, I still see 'TNX' or 'TKS' being sent, 'TU' is much shorter. Also do we need to send the very long '73'? Or the very long 'CQ'? Maybe it's time for a new set
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00302.html (9,877 bytes)

12. LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:19:06 +0100
I am attempting a X band contact on 73kHz, and would like to discuss a minimal X band QSO format,remembering that openings are short. As I understand it the requirments are for an exchange of full c
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00303.html (10,758 bytes)

13. LF: Re: QSO format (score: 1)
Author: "John Andrews" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:43:29 -0500
Laurie, How does this sound ? Sounds good to me. Of course, "W1TAG" sounds better than "W4DEX." <g> John Andrews, W1TAG
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2002-12/msg00304.html (9,032 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu