Message-ID: <000201c08891$f36b39e0$6f2a883e@default>
From: "MAL HAMILTON" <MAL@g3kev.freeserve.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: This and that
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:52:46 -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>


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rogerson <brian@esoterica.pt>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: 27 January 2001 10:31
Subject: Re: LF: This and that


>Hi all,
>
>I say again there is no amateur ativity AT ALL in this area.  I have put
>an enormous investment in time and effort to putting CT on the map
>and I have had only ONE QSO.  If all this is the result of that one QSO
>I would ask those making all this noise to examine their consciences
>and ask what you expect me to be doing next?  I will abide by a democratic

Hello Brian.

I would like to work you for my 21 st Country. I work normal hand
sent/received cw.
There are a lot of others about on normal cw and I am surprised that you
cannot hear some of them or vice versa. I work random activity but if you
let me know when you are likely to be on I will listen for you. You probably
know that I have a 120 ft mast suitably endowed with antennas for LF and can
run 1w erp out. A qso with you would be reasonable dx because I am the most
Northern station active in England ie Scarborough/East Coast. I have worked
EA xband my signal on 136 khz was 579.
I also work Italy and get  589 from Tuscany and to the North OH1 and also
get 589 frequently.
Looking forward to a qso soon.
de Mal/G3KEV


>decision.
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 03:55 27/01/01 +0000, you wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>
>>> Also, a warm welcome to Bill G6NB who has recently joined this
>>> Reflector.
>>Bill, a keen LF experimenter since July 1998, has now
>>'u n s u b s c r i b e d' from the LF Group.  I last worked Bill
>>on 30th December, RST 579 both ways.
>>
>>Brian wrote:
>>> To add to the current discussion, I find it quite strange there is
>>> an argument at all.  I doubt if there is any activity within a radius
>>> of 500Km and not too much within 1000Km.
>>In common with several other LF experimenters in the UK, I have
>>four 1W QRSS stations within 200 km of my QTH.  Now, consider the
>>impact when a high power QRSS operator fires up on 136.5:  CW
>>operators with average receive filters will find that the
>>resulting S9 + 20 dB signal effectively 'sterilises' the band
>>from 136.2 to 136.8 kHz for several hours.  In addition, the
>>almost constant S9 + 20 dB QRSS on 135.9 already sterilises the
>>band up to 136.2 - depending, of course, on the shape factor of
>>the IF filter in use.
>>
>>Rik wrote:
>>> . . .  I do not thing that QRSS is to blame for it.  Apart from one
>>> case of unintentional QRM (where apologies were given and
>>> accepted) there has been one weekend that many of us were looking
>>> for QRSS signals on 136.5kHz. All QRSS transmitting actvities (in
>>> Europe) have either been below 136.0 or above 137.6kHz.
>>If only this were true.   Although G3LDO later apologised for
>>running QRSS on 136.5, it was a hollow apology.  Within a couple
>>of weeks
>>he was at it again - this time on 136.4 kHz (with no apology).  I
>>have certainly heard QRSS on 137.0 and, last weekend, there were
>>also two QRSS signals on 136.3 kHz.  The regular TV watchers can
>>probably cite more instances.  On the other hand, I have _never_
>>heard any CW in the QRSS segment.
>>
>>Rik wrote:
>>> I see no reason why QRSS and CW can not co-exist.
>>Unfortunately, these two modes are incompatible: they have to be
>>separated through band-planning.  You would have to be a CW
>>operator to fully appreciate the limitations of CW filters when
>>an S9 + 20 dB carrier suddenly appears 200 Hz away from the
>>wanted S3 signal.
>>
>>Rik wrote:
>>> One of the most facinating aspects of amateur radio is 'breaking
>>> frontiers' and that is excatly what the QRSS transatlantic tests
>>> are all about.
>>I agree.  But, if QRSS is such an ideal mode, why do QRSS
>>operators need to use the whole of our tiny 2.1 kHz allocation to
>>do it?
>>
>>John wrote:
>>> Don't let's start slagging one or another off.  Surely one critic is
>>> enough, if not too many.  I don't hear all that much activity on the
>>> band most days anyway.  There is surely room for all interests.
>>And, surely, one lid operator is one too many also!  Yes, there
>>would be enough room, if only it were used wisely.
>>
>>Dave wrote:
>>> I am sorry that Steve feels the band has become unfriendly in the UK
>>I'm not sure that a 'band' can be unfriendly.  It's _people_ that
>>matter.  There's nothing friendly about the bully boy tactics
>>currently employed by the UK QRSS fraternity.
>>
>>G3LDO (who admits to being the demon QRSSer of East Preston)
>>wrote:
>>> For those who are anti-QRSS I would suggest they get a copy of ARGO.
>>Personally, I am not aware of anyone who is anti-QRSS.  But I
>>know several people who are fed up with lid operators such as
>>G3LDO running QRSS in the CW segment of the 136 kHz band.
>>
>>Regards to all
>>Steve GW4ALG
>>
>>
>>
>73 Brian     CT1DRP     IN51QD     41 09 58N  08 39 11W
>http://homepage.esoterica.pt/~brian
>
>
>