OK, Peter. Fair enough. In relation to the most recent incidents on 136.4 and 136.5, I think that I probably have over-exercised the point. So I apologise for that. OK, the apology accepted. But plea
I find being repeatedly flamed in e-mail a disturbing and depressing experiance. OK, Peter. Fair enough. In relation to the most recent incidents on 136.4 and 136.5, I think that I probably have ove
Steve Most recently, it has become common practice by QRSS operators such as G3LDO to further erode the number of notional CW channels by operating high power QRSS within the CW segment. Over the pas
Hi Alberto - Greetings from Chepstow! receiver. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my question above. Let's take a look at the 136 kHz band in more detail . . . It is my understanding that, whe
[snip] I agree. But, if QRSS is such an ideal mode, why do QRSS operators need to use the whole of our tiny 2.1 kHz allocation to do it? [snip] A QRSS signal takes less than 1 Hz of band. Any greate
Hi all, I say again there is no amateur ativity AT ALL in this area. I have put an enormous investment in time and effort to putting CT on the map and I have had only ONE QSO. If all this is the res
Hi all, I say again there is no amateur ativity AT ALL in this area. I have put an enormous investment in time and effort to putting CT on the map and I have had only ONE QSO. If all this is the resu
Hi All, Also, a warm welcome to Bill G6NB who has recently joined this Reflector. Bill, a keen LF experimenter since July 1998, has now 'u n s u b s c r i b e d' from the LF Group. I last worked Bill
