Message-ID: <000001c073e9$3bb0f180$a06268d5@oemcomputer>
From: "mike.dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <3A4E6ACF.F33E14D7@alg.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: QRM on 136.500
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

> The balloons here at GW4ALG are flying well and the local noise
> level is dropping . . .
> But a strong intermittent carrier is clobbering 136.5 kHz, the
> most commonly-used frequency for normal CW operation.

There is a worrying trend to use 136.5kHz for transatlantic transmissions. I
understand that VE1ZZ is crystal controlled, so he can be forgiven. However,
I have heard both QRSS and conventional CW transmissions from G stations on
this frequency aiming to be heard in VE.

Two problems are raised here: one is mentioned by Steve above, and the other
is that co-channel operation is extremely inefficient for this type of
marginal contact.

It was not long ago that sub-bands were proposed for Eu-NA (low end of band)
and NA-Eu (high end of band). I have the details of this on my web site and
requests for comments produced no result so I assume they are still
accepted.

Is there now (1) a wish for a free-for-all, or (2) a wish for new sub-bands?

I, for one, am very confused. Where should I transmit and receive now?

Mike, G3XDV
www.lf.thersgb.net