Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Spectrogram dot length

To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: Spectrogram dot length
From: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:41:10 +0100
Organization: Radio Society of Great Britain
Priority: normal
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: <[email protected]>
In bench tests it has been claimed that there is no advantage in going for a dot length exceeding 3 or 4 seconds when using QRSS and Spectrogram.

During a QRSs QSO this weekend with DJ5BV, local interference came on at S9 blanketing the screen with 'snow'. DJ5BV had been a very clear, but inaudible signal previously and it is a tribute to this technique that I could complete the contact with an inaudible station despite S9 QRM. However it was a great struggle and relied largely on me knowing that there were only a few possible things he could have been sending. (The old 160m tricks come in useful).

What is interesting is that his dashes at about 9 seconds long were much more readable that his dots as they stood out from the noise. Most of the final over was read using just the dashes!!

This makes two points:
1) What a good idea it was to have reports using just dashes.
2) There does appear to be an advantage in a practical situation when dot lengths are increased to 10s or so.

On the subject of QRSs, it may be useful to list a few abbreviations which are acceptable. For instance, DJ5BV did not send QRZ? to me, he just sent ?? which was clearly understood. A replacement for 73 would be useful - what about just TU (meaning 'thank you' for anyone who hasn't done HF CW recently)?

Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.dennison.demon.co.uk/activity.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>