Experience from this end on MF dictates that my sunrise is optimum for
VE7/W7/W6 and KL7. I have worked many over the years.
Do you have the FIREPOWER
De G3KEV
----- Original Message -----
From: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
> OM
> I will fire up but is your CW up to scratch? You will hear me but will I
be
> able to hear you?
> I want callsigns exchanged and not O X O procedure
> de g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Tilley" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
>
>
> So Mal
>
> Why are you not calling CQ then? I'm listening!!
>
> Stop talking and start radiating some of that mind numbing ERP you have.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 12/1/2010 5:06 PM, mal hamilton wrote:
> > I have some nice pics of my signal a few years back being received TA at
> > QRS 3 on 137 Kcs also 500 Kcs last year.
> > also NC1K was able to copy G3KEV and MM0ALM on normal CW in the past.
> > When there was an abundance of acty on 137 a few years ago I could copy
> the
> > USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW.
> > For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and elevated
> > antenna will do the trick without a struggle. There is no need for QRS
> > slower than 30 sec dot.
> > VE1JG was a big player in the past along with VE1ZZ and both able to
copy
> > my CW
> > Many TA QSO'S have taken place in the past when there was lots of acty
> from
> > the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especially
around
> > this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usually
> for
> > me on 7 Mcs because they did not have a permit for 137
> > At the present time some seem to be RE-INVENTING the wheel, obviously
not
> > reading past history about LF.
> > de Mal/G3KEV
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stefan Schäfer"<[email protected]>
> > To:<[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers
> >
> >
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> Yes, some thoughts:
> >>
> >> Am 01.12.2010 15:36, schrieb Mike Dennison
> >>> I believe the danger is to regard this as the 'optimum' speed for DX
> >>> working, simply because the S/N ratio is good.
> >> Is that really a danger?
> >>> In practice, there is
> >>> another factor in play. There is often rapid and deep fading on a DX
> >>> path, often resulting in only parts of letters being received at this
> >>> speed, even though the peak signal is quite strong (see many of the
> >>> pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this group).
> >>>
> >>> The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting with a
> >>> path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
> >>> information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time the
> >>> conditions must hold up.
> >> When was the last real QSO done in QRSS>= 30? I rember the contact
> >> between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
> >> transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mode.
I
> >> have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
> >> So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matter if
> >> there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often most of
> >> the nights. If the G would be lost (X_J)and in the next turn the J
would
> >> be lost (XG_), anyway everbody would know it't (XGJ). Furthermore the
DX
> >> interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
> >> If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO means
> >> that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can change
> >> the RX to the wanted QRSS/DFCW mode.
> >> Anyway, i am providing both QRSS-60 and QRSS-120 for TA and EU, so
> >> people may chosse what they like :-)
> >>> Take a look at VE7TIL's excellent DCF39
> >>> graph to see how short a good DX opening usually is - perhaps an hour
> >>> if you are lucky.
> >> ...which wouldn't be enough for a (real) QSO in QRSS-60 but enough for
> >> "FC" or "NM" or "NI" in QRSS-120.
> >>>
> >>> The very few who have had transatlantic QSOs have used QRSS30 or at
> >>> most QRSS60. I am not aware of a successful two-way involving a
> >>> longer dot length.
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest that DX beacons and grabbers use a =maximum= of 60s
> >>> dot length (though a second grabber screen could be provided for 120
> >>> etc if desired). In my opinion this would be more likely to result in
> >>> useful propagation data.
> >>>
> >> Done.
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Mike, G3XDV
> >>> ==========
> >>>
> >> 73, Stefan
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
|
