Message-ID: <000701cba312$63924420$0301a8c0@your91hoehfy9g>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4D122CE9.26517.19CC01F@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AE9BD@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> <E93ACBBD7EA842B0AB8E3A577C3F41CA@IBM7FFA209F07C> <776F8577325D4C4881D6DFA12096E0D3@AGB> <001601cba2cc$b7138910$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <1293134076.24424.16.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:29:27 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


I am not the only one that has expressed an opinion about a proper ID
procedure on LF. Address your remarks to all concerned also stick to the
subject, we are not discussing rubber stamp QSO'S. Have you heard a QSO
taking place with each station using single Letter Callsigns ? then the
guessing game via emails Who was that sending an X , W or a P
Any fool can transmit a machine generated bandslip Beacon but a two way hand
send morse QSO requires SKILL
Beacons used on a narrow band like LF are but unattended QRM generators
interfering with those trying to engage in two way communications.
I cannot say that I have heard you on LF or MF so curious why you are so
interested in what is going on ????

 g3kev

----- Original Message -----
From: "g4gvw" <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID


> Mal,
>
> For many of us who, while licensed radio amateurs, are mainly interested
> in the behaviour of the spectrum and the medium via which signals are
> propagated, beacons at UHF, VHF, HF, MF, LF et. al. have for many years
> been a perfectly acceptable and legitimate resource. We don't need to
> dictate an ID protocol to those generous of their time who provide them.
> All we need to know (ideally in advance) is how to identify the resource
> and its location together with a few technical details. At that point
> most of us are possessed of enough innate and inherent wit to engage our
> grey matter and draw such conclusions as may be appropriate. These
> skills are often of more import than the need to achieve a highly
> regulated and often "rubber-stamped" exchange whose main aim seems to
> require that some variety of "points-table" is constantly updated with
> an increasing number!
>
> I wish for Christmas SANITY - and Please May It extend THROUGHOUT 2011
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 18:10 +0000, mal hamilton wrote:
> > We do not need Beacons on LF this is the problem also why do Appliance
> > Operators on LF need to deviate from the procedures used on all the
other
> > amateur bands, who ever heard of single letter Beacons on HF, in fact
Beacon
> > operators on HF need special permission.
> > Radio Operators on the other hand in QSO mode on any band do not have
this
> > problem
> > g3kev
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
> > To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 5:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
> >
> >
> > > I Suggested a  timed  beacon system, a long time ago   , similar to
the
> > > g3plx  5 meg  monitoring  system , where  stations simply took an
> > available
> > > time slot and transmitted a  long  pulse ... monitoring  software
then
> > > simply  looked in the  slots and gave a  real  time s/n  reading ,
also
> > > enabled  stations  could  be  in rx  mode during there  'off' period
....
> > >
> > > Then  wspr  appeared .......game over ..or is it  ...
> > >
> > > So what about a  timed  beacon system that  uses  allocated time slots
and
> > > the  monitoring system  keeps track  or who is using  which slot  ..
> > > what a  strange idea .. but  for  LF  may have  big advantages
> > >
> > > All  on the same  frequency -so  no  problem  with  Ae Q / B/W leaving
> > the
> > > band open  for other modes
> > > NO   need  for  silly  long  tx periods , melting  station accessories
> > > ONLY   needs rudimental  time  lock
> > >
> > > OH and one  little  oversight .. all  you  need  is a  -CW-
transmitter ,
> > > no  frequency shift keying , no  audio  to  rf  translation ,
> > >
> > > Down side . needs  some one to  write the  control  software
........in
> > fact
> > > Andy , ran the  basic idea  on 500  for quite a  while , using  -one-
of
> > > the  three  time slots  of the  g3plx system, with Gary providing a
> > off-air
> > > on line  monitor  200  miles  north
> > >
> > > G
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > From: "Chris" <c.ashby435@btinternet.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:20 AM
> > > To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> > > Subject: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rik,
> > > > The idea is fine. But, the problems I have with this are (1)
Stations
> > > > don't always notify us who they are and what they are up to (Mike,
> > G3XDV,
> > > > is a perfect example of how it should be done, keeping us FULLY
> > informed),
> > > > and (2) is where I agree with Stefan, what about listeners (lookers)
who
> > > > are not on this refelector? Two letters are of little use to them. I
> > know
> > > > two stations near me who look on 137 but are not on here - for
various
> > > > reasons.
> > > > You just can't beat a full callsign, even if you do sometimes only
get
> > > > snatches of it. As it is, stations are often 'identified' by
frequency
> > > > with very dubious visual evidence!
> > > > Chris, G4AYT.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Rik Strobbe" <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
> > > > To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:04 AM
> > > > Subject: LF: RE: Full ID
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello Mike, all,
> > > >
> > > > for propagation test purposes (sound much better than beaconing) all
we
> > > > need is an unambiguous identification. A single character will lead
to
> > > > confusion, but 2 characters should do the job.
> > > > So what about using the 2 last characters of the callsign ?
> > > > That would make most ID's more or less of the same length.
> > > > G3XDV would use "DV", OR7T would use "7T", DF6NM would use "NM" and
so
> > on.
> > > > I cannot see any conflicts right now (= 2 stations active in
propagation
> > > > tests with identical 2 last characters).
> > > > Is national law requires a full id it can always be send in 12WMP
CW.
> > > >
> > > > 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> > > > [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Mike Dennison
> > > > [mike.dennison@ntlworld.com]
> > > > Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 2010 17:52
> > > > Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> > > > Onderwerp: LF: Full ID
> > > >
> > > > OK, it seems that most people want full suffixes to be sent. I
> > > > believe I had good reasons to use a short ID, but I am happy to go
> > > > along with the majority view.
> > > >
> > > > Of course the final straw was Mal threatening not to talk to me!
> > > >
> > > > Beacon tonight (in addition to, and not instead of, real QSOs) will
> > > > be on 136.177kHz, 'XDV' synchronised with the start of each hour.
> > > >
> > > > 73 de Mike
> > > > ========
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> --
> 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
>  qth nr felixstowe uk
> (east coast, county of suffolk)
>
>