Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+First\s+WOLF\s+QSO\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+Re\:\s+First\s+WOLF\s+QSO\!\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: First WOLF QSO! (score: 1): Author: "Dexter McIntyre W4DEX" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:38:20 +0000; I'll place my bets on WOLF getting through QRN when QRSS60 or even a dead carrier can't be seen. Not long after Stewart introduced us to WOLF, Lowfer station TEXAS was beaconing with this mode. I rec; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00006.html (12,054 bytes)
2. LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: First WOLF QSO! (score: 1): Author: "John Andrews" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:57:55 -0500; Dave, We did some tests a couple of years ago involving two similar stations near each other that were about 1800 km from me. One ran QRSS60, the other WOLF. I think we did the tests for about a week; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00256.html (10,340 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: First WOLF QSO! (score: 1): Author: "Rik Strobbe" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:35:29 +0100; Hello John, Dave, I believe that it might be difficult to compare QRSS and WOLF as their effectivity also depends on propagation conditions. As WOLF is repeating the message over and over at a rather; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00347.html (11,551 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]