Return to KLUBNL.PL main page
| To: | "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" <[email protected]> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs |
| From: | N1BUG <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:46:47 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <CAA8k23S8cs-FUqYeUSR8_bb5ntFG9Piy6X1g2cZ1kOMNwA2GrA@mail.gmail.com> |
| References: | <[email protected]> <CAL-VeeMsyy3HWGZAvbJYQuRTJgM4epvj8DpRbmJb49vMVq_aXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA8k23S8cs-FUqYeUSR8_bb5ntFG9Piy6X1g2cZ1kOMNwA2GrA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Reply-to: | [email protected] |
| Sender: | [email protected] |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 |
This question has been answered to my satisfaction. Thank you to all who took the time to share your knowledge and thoughts. The historical perspective provided by Alex, R7NT sums it up for me. Historically QSOs requiring multiple nights have been recognized for a long time. I agree of course about the entire QSO taking place by radio on 137 kHz (or 136 :) I have a long history of VHF/UHF weak signal work including EME and I and I fully understand this. Of course such a commitment of time is a lot to ask of a QSO partner! 73, Paul N1BUG (back to building LF gear now :) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs, Andy Talbot |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs, N1BUG |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs, Andy Talbot |
| Next by Thread: | LF: Re: Important question on LF QSOs, g3kevmal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |