To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: Re: Re: WSPR and CW |
From: | Scott Tilley <[email protected]> |
Date: | Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:37:23 -0800 |
In-reply-to: | <011801c968f3$a64c4e10$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> |
References: | <[email protected]> <001601c968e6$912297e0$4201a8c0@home> <011801c968f3$a64c4e10$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) |
All this is evidence of your lack of skill in the setup of your own station nothing more nothing less... mal hamilton wrote: YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT SEEN MY REPORTS RECENTLY.I OFTEN COPY THE USA STATIONS AUDIBLE AND LOUD ON CW AS WELL AS THE QRS3 TRANSMSSIONS. WHEN YOU WERE STRUGGLING A FEW NIGHTS AGO ON WSPR I WAS SEEING THE SIGNAL TRACE SOLID INSPITE OF SOME SLOW QSB AND HAD XGR/2 BEEN ON QRS3 I CERTAINLY COULD HAVE HAD A QSO AS I DID A COUPLE OF NIGHTS LATER, XGR/2 OOO COPY. This is the situation at my QTH obviously your RX set up needs tweaking. An other disadvantage of wspr is the accurate time sync required for a decode plus frequency accuracy, NOT the case with ON/OFF keyed morse slow or fast. All things considered there is nothing to date to beat CW in its many formats. On the HF bands I have noticed an increase in hand sent and auto CW commercial acty, CW is certainly not going away, and during contests on the amateur bands one can hardly find a slot to TX. There are digital modes also about but they seem to be slow at overtaking CW, most are obviously not convinced.mal/g3lev |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR and CW, Scott Tilley |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR and CW, Stewart Bryant |
Previous by Thread: | LF: Re: Re: WSPR and CW, mal hamilton |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: WSPR and CW, Stewart Bryant |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |