At 17.41 24/05/99 +0100, Mike Dennison wrote:
This makes two points:
1) What a good idea it was to have reports using just dashes.
The idea originates frome the EME community. They use this
system since 20 years or so ... and face signal conditions
very similar to us. I am happy to have proposed this way to the
LF community (this list, Oct. 99)
2) There does appear to be an advantage in a practical situation
when dot lengths are increased to 10s or so.
Agreed. It all depends from the kind of noise you have. The bench
tests were done (at least in my case) on-air in a quiet evening,
probably without thunderstorms around.
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)?
I also used "??" a couple of times. Seems good and easily understandable.
Also "CU" instead of "73", Peter is right!
I'm looking for skeds in QRSs for next evenings. I am QRV from
approximately 1900z thru 2100z, every evening, QRM and QRN permitting.
Anyone interested ?
73 to all - Marco - IK1ODO
| 