Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <008501c7d035$cb89d380$9d4f6a58@wgt01>
From: "Gary - G4WGT" <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <459233.19978.qm@web86407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:06:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: 500 - 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
Status: O

Hi Chris & All,

I am in favour of the band plan, it looks fine to me. I have always tried to 
operate my beacon transmissions well away from QSO's (503.600 KHz).

I do believe that there is a case for beacons as proven in Jim's (M0BMU) 
early morning e-mail & capture today showing a long period fading report for 
2 beacons.

Perhaps the answer to banning beacons at a certain time period would be to 
ask beacon operators to use a much lower power level at these periods, say 
down to Chris's recommended qrp level of <10 mW ERP. I recently ran my 
beacon for a long period at 1 mW ERP & received reports from Europe.

As the band plan is for discussion at the moment changes can be made if 
required, but it looks like Chris has accommodated for the rock bound users 
as well.

Thanks to Chris for the idea & well spent time compiling the plan for 
discussion.

73

Gary - G4WGT - IO83qp


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CHRISTOPHER OSBORN" <c.cjo@btinternet.com>
To: "LF group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:54 PM
Subject: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN


> CT
> DISCUSSION POINTS
>
> Obviously an ideal band plan would benefit as many stations as possible to 
> the inconvenience of as few as possible.
>
> There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes and beacons from the 
> 'straight' cw segment of the band.
>
> There may be a case for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times of 
> likely high cw activity (weekends).
>
> QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan locations.
>
> As most of the stations are congregated in the SE corner of the UK, local 
> QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated from QSO's with more 
> distant stations.
>
> It would be useful to have a QRP calling frequency to facilitate 'homing 
> in' on weaker stations.
>
> Is there a  case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled 
> transmission ?
>
> 73 G3XIZ SK
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up 
> for your freeaccount today.