LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: CQ WW

["mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>]

Jay
At the time I was against the move because as you say it worked well for
years and why change for one person.
In future to suit the majority of USA stations I will TX on 136.318 Khz and
will be on tonite on that frequency.
Your shots of both freq shows the advantage of 136.318 also the possibility
of EU stations being heard/seen on the West coast of Canada is Remote.
Warren indicated he also had a problem from QRM on 136.177
Others reading this email might want to consider moving back to the old
tried and tested frequency.
136.318           136.318
I am running around 0.5w erp at present but can QRO to 1w erp if needed for
a QSO

Nice to have your opinion and pse adjust your Grabber to 318
also hope W4DEX and AA1A will have a look for TA acty agn.


I will start TA QSO mode tonite at 2230 utc if Dex and Warren

de Mal/G3KEV

----- Original Message -----
From: <jrusgrove@comcast.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 12:54 PM
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: CQ WW


> Mal
>
> Was preoccupied last night and thought I had switched on the temporary
grabber but apparently not
> ...
>
> AFAIK the window was moved from 136318 to 136177 to accommodate VE7TIL and
a noise problem he has at
> 318. Unfortunately the move hasn't worked out well for me. For years 318
has been a clear spot at
> this location and provided some amazing T/A receptions - like CT1DRP
copied 1-1/2 hours before local
> sunset. At 177 extraneous signals are the norm more often than not and
I've given up regular T/A
> watching because of it. It's the odd time that interference isn't present.
>
> The two attachments (if they make it through) show the difference at this
location.
>
> Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2
>