Return to KLUBNL.PL main page
| To: | rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: LF: long haul QSO's |
| From: | "Vernall" <vernall@xtra.co.nz> |
| Date: | Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:23:58 +1300 |
| References: | <003301c186e8$dabdefe0$9fa1883e@g3aqc> <5.1.0.14.0.20011217162715.00abb350@gemini.herts.ac.uk> <007101c1873f$8cf461c0$e09a17d2@steve> |
| Reply-to: | rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org |
| Sender: | <majordom@post.thorcom.com> |
Hi all, I have not had time to go over all bulletins in detail, but I have a summary contribution to make from what I have seen: - for hardware, there are attractions in having only one tone transmitted at any time (more ways of making modulators and PAs). - having a succinct QSO format is essential - having a register of (short) call sign IDs saves much time (at ZL6QH, sending Q is obviously more effective than sending ZL6QH, in any code) - a call sign register could be "temporary" as a way of satisfying demand from say 3 or 4 bit ID codes. - having a "sticky beak" mode for Argo monitoring by other than the QSO participants gives more interest to LF DXing 73, Bob |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: LF: List restrictions, James Moritz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | LF: 73.8, john currie |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: long haul QSO's, Steve Olney |
| Next by Thread: | LF: 7fsk g4jnt, jannsen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |