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+more\s+Wolf\s+tests\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "John Currie" <>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 00:40:47 -0400
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.
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00306.html (10,703 bytes)

2. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "mike.dennison" <>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:45:40 +0100
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00307.html (10,197 bytes)

3. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "John Currie" <>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 04:11:00 -0700
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00309.html (12,212 bytes)

4. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "Dexter McIntyre W4DEX" <>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:03:54 -0400
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00310.html (10,017 bytes)

5. LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:26:19 +0100
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00312.html (10,901 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "Rik Strobbe" <>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:41:50
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00313.html (10,499 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:43:34 +0100
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00314.html (9,933 bytes)

8. LF: Re: more Wolf tests (score: 1)
Author: "Alberto di Bene" <>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 22:58:57 +0200
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
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-05/msg00317.html (9,002 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu