Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id AAB6C380000B3; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1THVqw-0005gb-JB for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:23:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1THVqv-0005gS-Pr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:23:17 +0100 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1THVqt-0002mq-1M for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:23:16 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnoKAEReZVBcF/ze/2dsb2JhbABFgkukUYRqkHEDgRCBCYIbBQEBBQgBAQNJAg8SCwEBAwUCAQMRBAEBCgwZFAEEGgYWCAYTCgECAgEBA4dfAxO4WIo2YhppgXiDLAOII4VGmCuCZ4Fj X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,501,1344207600"; d="scan'208,217";a="405019931" Received: from host-92-23-252-222.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.252.222]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 28 Sep 2012 09:23:12 +0100 Message-ID: <002101cd9d52$7fd8b4c0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: Cc: "rsgb" References: <20961.6c91afbf.3d962a97@aol.com> <2695A322E3A04E98BEC43E7D633FCF94@White> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:23:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: FSK CW with a shift of 6 Khz, and a sounder sweeping the entire band, These are TWO VERY ANTI SOCIAL MODES. I intend to work primarily CW or QRSS 3 - 20 QSO MODE and not much slower and will pick a CLEAR frequency on the band for such communications. I do not intend to use UNATTENDED BROADCAST/BEACON MODES that cause needless and endless QRM to others wishing to communicate in real time. If there was a QSO version of OPERA that wouild be useful. The band is only 7 Khz wide and due consideration should be afforded to all users and not swamped by endless UNATTENDED BEACONS churning out repeative data for hours. After years of experience especially on 160 metres the other MF band, I am able to determine quickly what band conditions and propagation are like and proceed to engage in a QSO both near and far. I do not need any assistance from Beacons to work out band conditions. This is how I intend to proceed as I do on all the other radio amateur bands also taking into account any sensible agreements to avoid QRM to other radio amateurs. Others will have their own opinions [...] Content analysis details: (4.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.237 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 4.4 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: e6ca507e494efc41e4b71d154e5805b0 Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01CD9D52.7F4E4F10" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db408506563083001 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CD9D52.7F4E4F10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FSK CW with a shift of 6 Khz, and a sounder sweeping the entire band, = These are TWO VERY ANTI SOCIAL MODES. I intend to work primarily CW or QRSS 3 - 20 QSO MODE and not much = slower and will pick a CLEAR frequency on the band for such communications. I do not intend to use UNATTENDED BROADCAST/BEACON MODES that cause = needless and endless QRM to others wishing to communicate in real time. If there was a QSO version of OPERA that wouild be useful.=20 The band is only 7 Khz wide and due consideration should be afforded to = all users and not swamped by endless UNATTENDED BEACONS churning out = repeative data for hours.=20 After years of experience especially on 160 metres the other MF band, I = am able to determine quickly what band conditions and propagation are = like and proceed to engage in a QSO both near and far. I do not need any = assistance from Beacons to work out band conditions. This is how I intend to proceed as I do on all the other radio amateur = bands also taking into account any sensible agreements to avoid QRM to = other radio amateurs. Others will have their own opinions At present the 600 m band seems to be a playground for BEACONS in = various DATA MODES and reception reports via INTERNET with NO real time communications taking place except the odd CW QSO. De G3KEV ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk=20 Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 7:45 AM Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan Dear Walter, Roland, Klaus, thanks very much for working out this detailed suggestion! I do share the views of Alan and Rik that we should not now (and = perhaps net ever) impose a "plan", in the sense that everyone is = expected to adhere to it, or (even worse) that frequency usage may be = enforced by authorities. I think that we do need "freedom to operate" on = an experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur traffic = throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing = difficulties. But still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may = be helpful. It is certainly a good idea to have narrow guard bands around existing = aeronautical beacons. But there will be different ones in other regions, = like outside Europe. Coming from LF, I am a strong promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 = slots for intercontinental work. They should be free of faster usage (eg = QRSS-3), and reasonably spaced from subbands with local signals from = within the assigned receive area. We may again adopt a scheme with = different, nonadjajend slots for different target areas ("TA / Eu"). One thought I keep pondering is whether we could somehow mitigate QSB = by frequency diversity. Current ruling here has an 800 Hz bandwidth = limitation. But it may be ok to transmit two "separate" but = complementary narrowband signals, each say 100 Hz wide but 6 kHz apart. = This could go from a simple FSK-CW scheme (eg. keydown on 472.6, key up = on 478.6), all the way to digitally processed "multi-narrowband" modes.=20 One day we may want to perform "ionosonde"-type channel sounding, by = sweeping or stepping a GPS-controlled carrier all over 7 kHz. =20 Or how about analog narrowband voice transmissions, fitting in 0.8 = kHz? It is neither CW nor digital, but certainly something worthwhile = playing with. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) PS I'm posting this on Yahoo as well, to avoid missing half of our = community. From: KKorn42@aol.com=20 Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:18 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: 630m Band Plan Dear All as a first proposal for discussion we present a "plan" that we coined = the "B31 Band Plan for 630m". The name derives from the DOK to which all = who shared ideas, belong. Just to state it once more: it is a first basis and proposal and those = who have an interest in operation between 472kHz and 479kHz (up to now = the slot allocated by the BuNetzA to German hams) are invited to agree, = discuss or provide better ideas. Several hams already provided specific proposals which were = incorporated. We deliberately did not detail too much, as we do not think, that all = can be fixed prior to actual demand. Please see attached gif-file. 1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3D3kHz). 2. Within that, a region for beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) = followed by a region for Slow CW (472,150kHz to 472,300kHz). 3. For TA-CW DX traffic or other long-haul DX, a calling frequency = shall be established at 472,600kHz. 4. For other CW traffic, another calling frequency (if the necessity = exists) shall be established in the upper region of the CW allocation at = 474,750kHz (474,500 occupied by "SA"). 5. The frequency 472,500kHz will not be allocated for special use (at = least for the time being), as a continuous carrier is audible 24/7 = throughout DL. 6. A slot for Digital Modes from 475,0kHz to 479,0 (=3D 4kHz). 7. Today it is much too early to decide which digital modes will be = used on 630m. We propose to leave this open for the future. WSPR = (474,200kHz Dial USB), OPERA and ROS (477,000kHz DIAL USB) have = established themselves on the shown frequencies. Some other modes that = may be useful for MW but can not yet be used (e.g. JT65HF) because they = allow no suitable frequency selection. 8. Digital Modes should not overlap each other (minor relocations may = be necessary). 9. Whether or not the shown "protection zones" of e.g. +/- 50Hz around = active NDB frequencies are necessary or not, ist still being discussed. 10. No further stipulations will be given. Walter DJ2LF, Roland DL3NDR, Klaus DJ6LB NB (DJ6LB): Upon request I provide (via separate mail) a picture with = better resolution .=20 ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CD9D52.7F4E4F10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FSK CW with a shift of 6 Khz, = and a =20 sounder sweeping the entire band, These are TWO VERY ANTI  SOCIAL=20 MODES.
I intend to work primarily CW or = QRSS 3 -=20 20 QSO MODE  and not much slower and will pick a CLEAR = frequency on=20 the band for such
communications.
I do not intend to use = UNATTENDED=20 BROADCAST/BEACON MODES that cause needless and endless = QRM to=20 others wishing to communicate in  real time.
If there was a QSO version of = OPERA that=20 wouild be useful.
The band is only 7 Khz wide = and due=20 consideration should be afforded to all users and not swamped by endless = UNATTENDED  BEACONS churning out repeative data for hours.=20
After years of experience = especially on 160=20 metres the other MF band,  I am able to determine quickly what band = conditions and propagation are like and proceed to engage in a QSO both = near and=20 far. I do not need any assistance from Beacons to work out band=20 conditions.
This is how I intend to proceed = as I do on=20 all the other radio amateur bands also taking into account any = sensible=20 agreements to avoid QRM to other = radio amateurs.   Others=20 will have their own opinions
 
At present the 600 m band seems = to be a=20 playground for BEACONS in various DATA MODES and reception reports via=20 INTERNET
with NO real time communications = taking=20 place except the odd CW QSO.
 
De G3KEV
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Markus=20 Vester
Cc: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups= .co.uk=20
Sent: Friday, September 28, = 2012 7:45=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band = Plan

Dear Walter, Roland,=20 Klaus,
 
thanks very much for = working out=20 this detailed suggestion!
 
I do share the views=20 of Alan and = Rik that we=20 should not now (and perhaps net ever) impose a "plan", in = the sense=20 that everyone is expected to adhere to it, or (even worse) that = frequency=20 usage may be enforced by authorities. I think that we do need = "freedom to=20 operate" on an experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur = traffic=20 throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing = difficulties.=20 But still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may be=20 helpful.
 
It is certainly = a good idea=20 to have narrow guard bands around existing aeronautical = beacons. But=20 there will be different ones in other regions, like outside=20 Europe.
 
Coming from LF, = I am a strong=20 promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 slots for intercontinental work. = They=20 should be free of faster usage (eg QRSS-3), and = reasonably=20 spaced from subbands with local signals from within the = assigned=20 receive area. We may again adopt a scheme with different, nonadjajend=20  slots for different target areas ("TA / = Eu").
 
One thought I keep = pondering is=20 whether we could somehow mitigate QSB by frequency diversity. Current = ruling=20 here has an 800 Hz bandwidth limitation. But it = may be ok to=20 transmit two "separate" but complementary narrowband = signals, each say=20 100 Hz wide but 6 kHz apart. This could go from a simple FSK-CW = scheme=20 (eg. keydown on 472.6, key up on 478.6), all the way to digitally = processed=20 "multi-narrowband" modes.
 
One day we = may want to perform=20 "ionosonde"-type channel sounding, by sweeping or stepping a = GPS-controlled=20 carrier all over 7 kHz.  
 
Or how = about analog narrowband=20 voice transmissions, fitting in 0.8 kHz? It is neither CW nor=20 digital, but certainly something worthwhile playing=20 with.
 
Best 73,
Markus = (DF6NM)
 
PS I'm posting this = on Yahoo as=20 well, to avoid missing half of our community.
 
 
From: KKorn42@aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:18 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: 630m Band Plan

Dear All
as a first proposal for discussion we present a = "plan" that=20 we coined the "B31 Band Plan for 630m". The name derives from the DOK = to which=20 all who shared ideas, belong.
Just to state it once more: it is a = first=20 basis and proposal and those who have an interest in operation between = 472kHz=20 and 479kHz (up to now the slot allocated by the BuNetzA to German = hams) are=20 invited to agree, discuss or provide better ideas.
Several hams = already=20 provided specific proposals which were incorporated.
We = deliberately did=20 not detail too much, as we do not think, that all can be fixed prior = to actual=20 demand.
 
Please see attached gif-file.
 
1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3D3kHz).
2. Within that, = a region=20 for beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed by a region for Slow = CW=20 (472,150kHz to 472,300kHz).
3. For TA-CW DX traffic or other = long-haul DX,=20 a calling frequency shall be established at 472,600kHz.
4. For = other CW=20 traffic, another calling frequency (if the necessity exists) shall be=20 established in the upper region of the CW allocation at 474,750kHz = (474,500=20 occupied by "SA").
5. The frequency 472,500kHz will not be = allocated for=20 special use (at least for the time being), as a continuous carrier is = audible=20 24/7 throughout DL.
6. A slot for Digital Modes from 475,0kHz to = 479,0 (=3D=20 4kHz).
7. Today it is much too early to decide which digital modes = will be=20 used on 630m. We propose to leave this open for the future. WSPR = (474,200kHz=20 Dial USB), OPERA and ROS (477,000kHz DIAL USB) have established = themselves on=20 the shown frequencies. Some other modes that may be useful for MW but = can not=20 yet be used (e.g. JT65HF) because they allow no suitable frequency=20 selection.
8. Digital Modes should not overlap each other (minor=20 relocations may be necessary).
9. Whether or not the shown = "protection=20 zones" of e.g. +/- 50Hz around active NDB frequencies are necessary or = not,=20 ist still being discussed.
10. No further stipulations will be = given.
 
Walter DJ2LF, Roland DL3NDR, Klaus DJ6LB
 
NB (DJ6LB): Upon request I provide (via separate mail) a picture = with=20 better resolution .
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CD9D52.7F4E4F10--