Re: LF: QRSS on 500 kHz

[CHRISTOPHER OSBORN <c.cjo@btinternet.com>]

Mal / Dave,

Thanks for your comments.

CW QSO's at present are quite heavy going with the high QRN level.
I use earphones most of the time and it's not very pleasant.
No damaged eardrums with QRSS - HI !

Dave, although we are strong with each other on CW why not try dropping power right down and seeing how we do on the slower modes ?
I was adjusting my TX today and can reduce the output to a few millwatts of RF  (into a dummy load).
I said in my N.O.V.application that I wanted to experiment over moderate distances with minute power levels.

Point noted about slower modes being best at the top end of the band.

There were a few stations braving the QRN today.
I managed to work G4GDR, G3UNT and G3XAQ.
I later heard Mal calling CQ but my rig was being 'played with' at the time.

73 Chris G3XIZ


Dave Pick <daveyxm@googlemail.com> wrote:
>  Chris
>
> Sounds good to me, I suggest the top end of the band which is QRM'd by RTE's 2nd harmonic at night so isn't much use for CW. Not much point in us two working on QRSS though as we can exchange a strong CW signal.  
> I have permission to use digital modes too and, although I see the appeal of a nice CW QSO when the signals are good, if we want to work further afield at this power level we're going to have to use QRSS, Wolf, Jason and all the other modes we've tried on 136. Part of my application rested on experimenting with these techniques in the presence of the faster QSB cycles that we see on 500k so I guess I'd better do it! 
>
> -- 
> G3YXM IO92BK Birmingham UK

---

Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try
it now.