| To: | <topband@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Topband: RST original meanings ... |
| From: | "Steve Flood" <kk7uv@bresnan.net> |
| Reply-to: | Steve Flood <kk7uv@bresnan.net> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:48:49 -0700 |
| List-post: | <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
The original RST scale seems needlessly overdetailed. Each R,S and T could be reduced to perhaps 3 subjective qualifiers with fewer ambiguous adjectives/adverbs. Readability 1 - Barely readable 2 - Readable with some difficulty 3 - Perfectly readable Signal Strength 1 - Weak 2 - Moderate 3 - Strong Tone 1- Bad tone - harsh buzz/chirp/etc present. 2 - Some buzz/chirp/etc detectable. 3 - Good tone Steve, KK7UV _______________________________________________ 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Topband: RF exposure/FS calculator? How big is your propertyfor no RFI to neighbours?, Mike & Coreen Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Topband: RST original meanings ..., Tree |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Topband: RST original meanings from back in the 1930's - no S meterrequired, Mike & Coreen Smith |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Topband: RST original meanings ..., Tree |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |