Re: [IRCA] Puyallup, WA Ultralight TP's for 3-29

[Nigel Pimblett <n.pimblett@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interestingly 1593 was doing well here this morning also, and was the sole
Chinese on a mostly DU morning.

73,

Nigel

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:21 AM Nick Hall-Patch, <nhp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 1330UT seemed to be the peak here as well, Gary, but not much in the
> way of Chinese....there might be something identifiable on the
> recordings, but 1593 didn't show until 1400UT, and even then was quite
> weak.
>
> On the other hand, there has been a fair bit of post-sunrise
> evidence.   747 just had the sign off chimes at fair strength at
> 1504UT, well over an hour after local sunrise, and several other
> channels were still showing intermittent audio as well.  Maybe 1593
> was in there somewhere also.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Nick
>
>
> At 14:46 2018-03-29, Gary DeBock wrote:
> >What seemed like a pretty routine session developed some drama
> >around 1330 as the fairly rare 657-China (Henan?) managed to take
> >over the frequency, silencing Pyongyang BS and its "TOH" 3+1 pips.
> >On the high band 1593-CNR1 also had an above average session,
> >although there didn't seem to be any unusual Chinese propagation
> >wave on the other high or low band frequencies.
> >
> >
> >At my 1300 start time the usual big guns on 594, 693, 747, 972 and
> >1566 were at good levels in and out, with some occasional fair
> >signals from 603-HLSA, 657-Pyongyang and 1593-CNR1. Around 1320 the
> >usual Pyongyang tirade woman on 657 started having some co-channel
> >competition from an easy listening music station, which made a
> >strange combination with her angry shouting. By 1330 the co-channel
> >had pushed Pyongyang way down, so that the 3=1 pips were barely
> >heard in the soft music. Pleasant Chinese female speech was all
> >alone on the frequency at 1333, and Pyongyang had bailed for the
> >session. The other usual second-tier Asians on 603 and 738 didn't
> >seem quite as strong as yesterday, and there weren't any Chinese
> >signals on 603, 756 or 936. 639-CNR1 managed a strong carrier and
> >seemed to show up with some audio, but KFI splatter was too
> >obnoxious to make sure. 1575-VOA and 1593-CNR1 both got a boost from
> >the daybreak enhancement, though, reaching good peaks in and out around
> 134
> >  0. 594-JOAK and 972-HLCA both managed extended S9 runs during
> > daybreak enhancement, which seemed to peak around 1335 here. They
> > were the strongest big guns in a moderately interesting session.
> >
> >
> >657  China   (Henan?)   Chinese female speech and music at fair
> >level all alone at 1333, after Pyongyang BS had been thoroughly
> >silenced  https://dreamcrafts.box.com/s/hgbhmenflvnxpaaxgx5r0v3los4jnsgl
> >
> >
> >73 and Good DX,
> >
> >Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)
> >
> >7.5" loopstick CC Skywave SSB Ultralight +
> >
> >15" FSL antenna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >IRCA mailing list
> >IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> >
> >Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> >original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
> >the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
> >
> >For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
> >
> >To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Nick Hall-Patch
> Victoria, BC
> Canada
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx