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: <00b701c7cdef$fe09ee50$14236a58@wgt01>
From: "Gary - G4WGT" <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <46A5CACB.23794.BDD9AF@dave.davesergeant.com>, <E1IDGeg-0008SF-Ql@post.thorcom.com> <46A5DAC7.6437.FC4A8C@dave.davesergeant.com> <003401c7cddf$3531b680$0300a8c0@lark> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707241301500.11847@lurcher.twatt.local>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:41:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: [ 500]; Two GW's Testing...
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 All,

I do agree with Alan & John, there is room for all modes of operation & as 
it is an experimental allocation we do need to assess all permitted modes 
under many various conditions.

73

Gary - G4WGT - IO83qp

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John GM4SLV" <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: LF: [ 500]; Two GW's Testing...


>
> Gents,
>
> There seems to be room for everyone, even in 3kHz, given that beacons
> (both QRSS and CW) can all sit quite happily crowded together, leaving
> room for QSOs in the rest of the band.
>
> Perhaps a gentlemanly bandplan can be agreed upon? Given that we have
> the SM and DL beacons at 505+ how about concentrating our beacons up in
> the top 500Hz or so? That way the bottom half of the band would be
> empty enough for QSOs with wide RX filters and the beacons could all be
> seen at once on an Argo screen?
>
> There must be room for the various "experiments" that we're all supposed
> to be doing - some of which quite rightly involve long-period beaconing
> as a tool for propagation studies that random QSOs would struggle to
> provide enough data for.
>
> Just my thoughts, as a remote station I like the fact that there is
> always something potentially to receive, even though for 99% of the time
> I see nothing.
>
> Regards,
>
> John GM4SLV
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Alan Melia wrote:
>
>> Come on Dave.......if he hadn't been beaconing you wouldnt have known you
>> could hear him !! Surely there are enough 200Hz slots on the band to move 
>> to
>> for QSOs. We can do without snide comments, we all know your feelings and 
>> we
>> all have to exist on the band together ... "experimenting" .... which is
>> what the permit was granted for. Your problem only occurs for a few miles
>> around Dave's location he is transmitting very low power, what about the
>> rest of us who have a quiet band at the moment?
>>
>> Alan G3NYK
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dave Sergeant <dave@davesergeant.com>
>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>> Sent: 24 July 2007 10:56
>> Subject: RE: LF: [ 500]; Two GW's Testing...
>>
>>
>> > On 24 Jul 2007 at 10:26, Michael Probert wrote:
>> >
>> > > Beacon on 503.8 now @ 10.25 BST. Is this frequency clear?
>> >
>> > Well I can copy you well (539) in the gaps of G0MRF's beacon (on
>> > about 503.75). Both well inside even my 200Hz filter.... band ain't
>> > wide enough for all these beacons if we are to leave some room for
>> > actual QSOs...
>> >
>> > 73 Dave G3YMC
>> >
>> > http://www.davesergeant.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>