Message-ID: <004901ca3b58$f7f12fa0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <47C531A902A946C9BE2EEC5C6B7E2EF3@presario1> <B4B0E46364344221863F9B6A7249A44E@JimPC> <000401ca3ac1$18dd35d0$0900a8c0@lark> <57a24ca70909211142p69c851aag8948b72f04ae28e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:47:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: US 500-kHz band plan
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


The same applies here M0BMU does not represent LF/MF UK activity. It appears 
this was a false start and generated unnecessary debate.
G3KEV

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Warren Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: US 500-kHz band plan


Jim, Alan,

     Fritz does NOT represent all of the US 500kHz activity and his
band plan is not being followed here by non-XSH stations so I would
take all this with a large grain of salt.  Keep in mind that in
addition to WD2XSH there is WE2XPQ, WD2XFX, and WE2XTT, and a half
dozen WE2XGR stations as well as other pending applications.

-- 
73 Warren K2ORS
                WD2XGJ
                WD2XSH/23
                WE2XEB/2
                WE2XGR/1




On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Alan Melia <alan.melia@btinternet.com> 
wrote:
> Hi Jim. whist it involves a change in "usage" from our end it would not 
> seem
> unreasonable to ensure that the US stations have a chance of hearing us
> without nearby swamping. I think this is an interesting development 
> becasuse
> it now seems that Frtiz is extending the experiment to intercontinental
> tests/qsos.......an activity he discouraged earlier....due to the terms of
> the original application and grant I believe. I have to admit my opinions
> carry very little weight as a "non-active operator" :-)) But maybe it will
> stimulate others with differing opinions to voice them to you.
>
> Best wishes
> Alan G3NYK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:14 PM
> Subject: LF: Re: US 500-kHz band plan
>
>
>> Dear LF Group,
>>
>> I still haven't replied to Fritz Raab, W1FR, regarding the WD2XSH US band
>> plan which he is apparently coordinating - you may remember I posted the
> US
>> proposals, which he sent me, a couple of weeks ago, but have not received
>> any comments from other UK/Eu stations. I think I should reply with
>> something, so now is your chance... The proposal relates to the US
>> allocation extending to 495 - 515kHz, and how that would fit in with
> current
>> UK and Eu beacon operations. The content of the e-mail is below. The 
>> issue
>> is that they would like to make a 501.0 - 501.2kHz WSPR sub-band, to fit
> in
>> with the various other proposals. Various other types of beacon modes are
>> allocated frequencies outside the UK/EI/ON 501 - 504kHz range, while
> 501.2 -
>> 504kHz is allocated to "general comms". Retaining frequencies just below
>> 504kHz would divide their "general comms" band in two
>>
>> I don't think there is anything preventing us from doing this, it is just
>> the inconvenience of turning the current band "upside-down". Let me know
>> what you think!
>>
>> Cheers, Jim Moritz
>> 73 de M0BMU
>>
>> >>>From W1FR:
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> Thanks for the comments on the band plan, passed
>> along to me by W1XP.
>>
>> About a month ago, a modification to the WD2XSH
>> license was approved that adds stations and gives us
>> access to 495 - 510 kHz. Perhaps half of the 42 stations
>> will eventually get on the air. Because of NDBs, some
>> stations are limited to parts of this band and we will
>> have two calling frequencies and two beacon bands.
>>
>> A draft of our new band plan follows. Of particular
>> interest is WSPR. As I see it, our options are:
>>
>> (a) 501.0-501.2: Conveniently on one side of our comms
>> band. Will not overload WSPR receivers near 504 kHz.
>> Apparently in EU CW-beacon band.
>>
>> (b) 503.8-504.0: Apparently same as what you guys are
>> using. Cuts our comms band in the middle. Nearby
>> stations may overload US receivers trying to hear EUs.
>>
>> (c) 503.9-504.1: Same problems as above with cutting
>> comms band in two and overloading. Conveniently
>> straddles both G/ON/EI and Canadian bands.
>>
>> Any further thoughts you may have will be
>> appreciated.
>>
>>
>> 73, Fritz, W1FR
>>
>> Frederick H. (Fritz) Raab, Ph.D.
>> GREEN MOUNTAIN RADIO RESEARCH COMPANY
>> 77 Vermont Avenue, Fort Ethan Allen
>> Colchester, Vermont 05446 USA
>> Tel./Fax.: +1 (802) 655-9670 Home: +1 (802) 862-0997
>> E-mail: f.raab@ieee.org
>>
>> BASIC BAND PLAN for WD2XSH
>>
>> f, kHz USE
>>
>> 495.0 - 495.1 QRSS, 1-Hz spacing, 40 stations
>> 495.1 - 495.6 CW/PSK beacons midwest, 100-Hz spacing, 10 stations
>> 495.6 - 499.0 Comms
>> 497.5 Calling frequency
>> 499.0 - 501.0 Reserved for heritage stations and special events
>> 501.0 - 501.2 WSPR
>> 501.2 - 505.0 Comms
>> 505.0 - 505.2 DX window
>> 505.2 - 508.5 Comms
>> 507.5 Calling frequency
>> 508.5 - 510.0 CW/PSK beacons east, south, west, Pacific, 50-Hz spacing,
> 30
>> stations
>> 510.0 - 511.0 WE2XGR beacons
>> 511.0 - 515.0 WE2XGR SSB and wideband modes
>>
>>
>> OTHER IN-BAND SIGNALS
>>
>> 503.976 NEED LSB
>> 505.0 NEED carrier
>> 506.024 NEED USB
>>
>> 508.976 OF/FA LSB
>> 510.0 OF/FA carrier
>> 511.024 OF/FA USB
>>
>>
>
>
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: 09/21/09 
05:51:00