Hi Mike I inadvertantly deleted your last comments on WOLF could you please resend 73 de John VE1ZJ with Hmmm. I was originally suspicious of that figure, and have seen nothing yet that supports it.
G4DEX wrote: I will share one experience I have had with WOLF. For several years I tried to copy the 1 watt 180 KHz Lowfer beacon TEXAS which is over 1000 miles from my QTH. I was finally able to cop
Hi all, As you can probably tell from previous emails, I am not a fan of WOLF. Basically I feel it simply takes a lot more spectrum space than it is worth. As I stated earlier 60 to 80 QRSS stations
I am not aware of any amateur radio WOLF reception so far that would not have been viable using QRSS, but the technique is at an early stage. Mike, I will share one experience I have had with WOLF. F
ON7YD wrote: While WOLF is in an 'experimental stage' the carrier can be usefull for tuning purposes. But if you can detect a 2 or 3 second carrier, a DFCW QSO won't take more time than a WOLF QSO. S
Hello Mike & group, While WOLF is in an 'experimental stage' the carrier can be usefull for tuning purposes. But if you can detect a 2 or 3 second carrier, a DFCW QSO won't take more time than a WOLF
Decidedly the spectrogram-like programs are less than ideal for detecting the presence of a Wolf signal. Look at this picture : http://www.qsl.net/i2phd/argo/jimwolf.html It has been taken just a few
Decidedly the spectrogram-like programs are less than ideal for detecting the presence of a Wolf signal. Look at this picture : http://www.qsl.net/i2phd/argo/jimwolf.html It has been taken just a few
