Thanks Stefan. I've uploaded some of the captures of your signals
to the web site: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~jcraig/lfex.html
along with a capure of MP on 137.913 kHz.
Thanks again, congrats and 73
Joe
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011, Stefan Schäfer wrote:
Hi Joe,
Am 27.12.2011 13:26, schrieb [email protected]:
[...]
Many thanks to the patience of DK7FC who managed to complete
a QSO with this station, in spite of my poor skills: the FSK was
q>> again set too low and the QRSS buffer was too small, resulting
in truncated messages. DFCW10, QRSS10, 30 and 20 were used here.
Stefans QRSS3 yielded a consistent O copy and was again quite
audible at times.
73
Joe VO1NA
Thank you Joe for the QSO. I wasn't sure if my QRSS-3 signal was visible all
the time. But it seems so.
It was a procedure as in a real QSO, thanks for that.
A short report:
First you called me and i didn't see you. Just on the VE2IQ grabber i saw
what's going on. I called CQ in QRSS-3 to that time.
But later your "...NA K" became well visible here, O copy. So i stopped
watching other grabbers and mails to start a valid QSO. I asked "?" You were
calling me again then in QRSS-10. I saw the complete call with QSB, see
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/QRSS10_NA1.jpg. The "V" of your call was
lost in QSB but i saw your complete call some months ago. So i could have
known or assume who was calling (always playing the game as if there is no
internet existing and as if LF is the only band available). Then i asked
"VO1NA ?..." and gave you a T report. Later you transmitted QRSS-30 (or 20?)
and became O copy again! You confirmed with "R" See another capture at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/QRSS10_NA5.jpg (report OO and K). The end
of the QSO can be seen here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19882028/LF/QRSS10_NA7.jpg The end would have been
fine in QRSS-10 as well.
Do you also have some screenshots Joe?
Thanks for that and i hope we can repeat that in DFCW-10 or so, if my grabber
RX is finally a bit more optimised or uses a remote linkand antenna in the
forest. A loop, nulling out DCF39 would have resulted in more than 3 dB S/N i
am sure.
73, Stefan/DK7FC
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2011.php
|
