Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: QRS SPEED

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: QRS SPEED
From: Scott Tilley <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 07:23:34 +0000
In-reply-to: <00ba01cb918e$0d5ddd70$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
References: <004201cb916a$6326d000$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf><[email protected]><008601cb918a$f10ee270$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <[email protected]> <00ba01cb918e$0d5ddd70$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
My pleasure Mal

You can question Mr. Kunikazu Togashi's honour and ask for his evidence yourself, as I have only my grabs to provide you and that of KL7UK's a witness to the exchange to provide.

'NI Report' clearly shows the full and complete calls and report I copied of NI's DFCW30 signal. 

'RO_R' clearly shows Kuni's valiant attempt to acknowledge me hand keying in QRSS30.  I didn't know he had a malfunction and I can imagine the OM was loosing his mind over there trying fix the problem and acknowledge me any way he can.  My notes on the enclosed are based on my impressions at the time when I was copying this according to my written logs...  I was confused by the content of this transmission but it is clear he was frantically trying to let me know he heard me!

Our procedure was to only respond with a R or TU or anything else when he copied my complete RO and otherwise do nothing if no or partial copy.  If he did not copy anything he would not respond and I'd go on sending RO until my sunrise and listening between transmissions and we'd try again the next day.  Using that logic any response no matter how incoherent as it turned out was a 'Roger'.  Similar to presently accepted EME practice...  I believe even less is required during an HF contest... Certainly less is required for you to claim copy of a signal on 9KHz :-)

'QSO' is KL7UK's record from AK. 

So fair being fair, I'd love to review your evidence of your claims!

73 Scott




On 12/1/2010 7:29 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
I want pictures of callsign exchanges and reports, like I can produce for my DX QSO'S. I have seen some published information but I need to be convinced and I have not heard the JA account of this QSO.
 
 
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRS SPEED

Mal,

If you read the posts you will see this QSO has been very well documented here on this group.

73s
Roger G3XBM

On 1 December 2010 19:07, mal hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
Om
Can you please produce evidence of your JA qso.
I would like to see the Argo shots of your QSO ie Callsigns in both directions and reports exchanged.
I can supply evidence of my DX QSO'S TA and normal CW QSO'S with Russian stations.
I and others await this information
de mal/g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRS SPEED

Mal

What do you know... Answer, nothing useful to this discussion.

You have no experience using long dot lengths or paths outside the small confines of EU on LF where it's easy to preach your BS as it only works because of the density of stations...

Also your preaching about much power and huge vertical antennas is not relevant.  Once you reach a certain point say the 1W ERP limit we are all equal. So the only multipliers left is integration and operator practice using long integration technologies.

Alas, this is what burns you up as you have no skill in these areas and when you try you end up working the neighbour's toaster oven as your comical attempt to copy Stefan on 9KHz demonstrated...

It's too bad you're the type of dog that can't be taught new tricks...

So rather than waste BW on the reflector spend some time TRYING to work some real DX at say the 12000km or 7100km range and then post some meaningful comments.  You'll find that your worn bag of tricks won't work.

73 Scott




 


On 12/1/2010 3:14 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
LF/MF
Like I have said many times before. QRS speeds of 3 or 10 are usually sufficient and maybe 30 in extreme cases but speeds of 120, 240 and slower are not useful because of QSB and QRM hits breaking up the trace and producing misleading results.
in fact even faster CW is useful for an ID under poor or bad fading conditions.
Use as much power as possible and a good elevated antenna  to overcome path fading and qrm. QRP signals are vy prone to QSB whereas the QRO signals make it to DX destinations.
Grabbers running at vy slow speeds are not useful
 
de mal/g3kev
 



--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
G3XBM   GQRP 1678    ISWL G11088

Attachment: NI Report.JPG
Description: JPEG image

Attachment: RO_R.JPG
Description: JPEG image

Attachment: qso.JPG
Description: JPEG image

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