[Lowfer] TAG wolf

[Jay Rusgrove]

John

Those were all ten minute audio clips - not sure if longer clips would =
have produced copy further out - my guess is probably not significantly.

I would agree with your thoughts on wolf spacing.

Based on the signal level we saw today I don't think you should have too =
much problem completing a QSO. If you could get enough frequency and =
antenna separation you could go wolf full duplex - that would be cool.

Jay


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: John Andrews=20
  To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net=20
  Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 3:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [Lowfer] TAG wolf


  Jay,

  Thanks! That's very interesting. Based on that, I would say that 100 =
Hz
  separation would be sufficient for all but very local signals. Or =
possibly
  the interference would be less if we went on odd multiples of 5 Hz. =
That
  might drop you in between the offending sidebands.

  Given that we have plenty of spectrum space, probably the 100 Hz thing =
would
  be the best. Interesting that you had some copy all the way out to 60 =
Hz,
  though.

  Am sitting here trying to cook up a QSO format that's simpler than the =
one
  Dex and I tried before. I think the daytime copy is so easy right now =
that
  it won't be an issue, though.

  JA


  _______________________________________________
  From the Lowfer mailing list
  Send messages to: Lowfer@mailman.qth.net
  To sub/unsub visit: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---