Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Re: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?
From: "Alan Melia" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:30:30 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1269873026; bh=fsA4V/bmwZdBkLUf3AvBdsfvqAWqR0/k22cxW1u9NUA=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=pqxqY6gn9+KFd+vpnYXZnyx+y+GvJWiElZZmrmfoaEiq4CYYg0ZbLgpJ5x/rsJUZ+fRcEZp0SNq7KhCj2utw8P98t+hTkVRmCmtrM4iko99O0EK4izjBUZ8nx2bp4ePIMg4xmuDXv5OC/x877kJx4rFtrU2mLGfzvc3n+7OdUTA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=Ga7mLWBSjo5T58P7hn8pJBl2YNNF8aapQXAQBTG54fAfbj0cj3lSFvCn2jphfmvIVo3Djq9fyx4Wa4XhuA6MxUwASU9+ab/PKXvf1pkjwldkPf92mSzy+P9eid/0UpI4DSeq/4S+A+DLAdshhhZ39I28WPOSd8JZbeJTYRcZ4xg= ;
Domainkey-status: good (testing)
References: <[email protected]> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1BB6@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi Stefan that would align with what was done in the TA contacts (as far as
I remember) unlike other modes it is also useful to capture the waterfall
and store for posterity. There can always be a question about recognising a
smudge on the waterfall when you do actually know who is calling. and though
some do not realise having a local post a clean picture may be considered by
some to compromise the QSO. I was always in favour of the trasfer of an
unknown to the receiver element of information. This used to be done on ATV.
Markus did devise a way of validating very weak traces with reference to the
locally received element timing. It is legitimate to lay a timing template
against the waterfall and chech the edge positions to define the character
when you somtimes get a fade or interference in the middle of a long dash,
for instance.

I dont expect itwill count for DXCC :-))

Alan G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Schäfer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:52 PM
Subject: LF: Minimum content of a valid QRSS/DFCW QSO?


Dear Group,

Recently i talked to Markus/DF6NM what has at least to be transmitted within
a valid QSO in very slow DFCW. I mean a 2way contact, not a beacon reception
report!

Those of you (and others) who have done successful TA QSOs may give me an
example. Are there official rules/laws about that?

If i would do a QSO with Markus like that, would it be valid?:

Me: "dk7fc/p k"  (the /p may be cancelled but it is "my label" ;-) )
Markus: "fc df6nm O k"
Me: "nm fc r M sk"
Markus: "r sk"


73, Stefan/DK7FC




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