Return-Path: Received: from rly-md05.mx.aol.com (rly-md05.mail.aol.com [172.20.29.143]) by air-md04.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINMD041-9014b222d9b1e4; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:31:50 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-md05.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMD051-9014b222d9b1e4; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:31:41 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ3hj-0005xT-LV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:35 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ3hj-0005xK-1D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:35 +0000 Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.24]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NJ3hh-00082E-KS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:35 +0000 Received: from OMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.35]) by QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FnMA1d0040ldTLk52nWTM3; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:27 +0000 Received: from JAYDELL ([76.23.233.102]) by OMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FnWR1d0042DDHkk3QnWRq7; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:27 +0000 Message-ID: <00f001ca7a55$55dac550$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> From: To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:30:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: LF: Re: Intercontinental LF waterholes Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EC_01CA7A2B.6BFE70E0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_00EC_01CA7A2B.6BFE70E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marcus, T/A enthusiasts Thanks for bringing this issue up for discussion - hope you get a better response than I did last year ;~) In the northeast USA it is impossible to monitor the 'high' waterhole for T/A when either XGJ or XES is on the air. The problem cannot be fixed with directional receiving antennas. In previous years I did quite a bit of T/A reception work but now rarely even take a look at the 'high' watering hole. Not attempting to police the band but merely point out the situation. If stations return to the 'low' watering hole I will certainly listen (watch). Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:14 PM Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes Dear LF group, recently we find the "transatlantic waterhole" around 137.777 kHz quite busy. Several Europeans have started beaconing within this segment. And there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, with wide traces covering up possible transatlantic DX signalling frequencies. During the last years, we have attempted to split the frequency bands for both directions of transatlantic work. Traditional segments were around 137.777 kHz west-to-east (for Americans transmitting towards Eu), and around 136.320 kHz east-west (for Eu to stateside). Slow modes (QRSS or DFCW, 60 second and longer) were used almost exclusively there, and several stations were able to successfully cross the pond in either direction. The situation has become a little more intricate as more stations from other parts of the world (eg. Asia, China, Japan) are joining the game with sensitive receivers and good signals. But I still think it would be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much as possible. My suggestion would be to stick with the east-west versus west-east allocation of the two slots. Taking into account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that all stations should transmit in the lower band during their evenings until local midnight, and then QSY to the lower band for the rest of the night. Receiver settings would of course be vice versa. I'm aware that this scheme cannot be perfect and universal. It won't cover North-South hauls, and would not protect signals during early or late openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would still be very useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discourage anyone from putting out a signal, and certainly reject the notion of anything reminiscent of a "band police". I just think a little coordination may help all of us to be successful on this challenging and fascinating band. Let me have your thoughts... 73 de Markus, DF6NM http://freenet-homepage.de/df6nm/Grabber.htm ------=_NextPart_000_00EC_01CA7A2B.6BFE70E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marcus, T/A enthusiasts
 
Thanks for bringing this issue up for= discussion -=20 hope you get a better response than I did last year ;~)
 
In the northeast USA it is impossible=  to=20 monitor the 'high' waterhole for T/A when either XGJ or XES is on= the air.=20 The problem cannot be fixed with directional receiving antennas. In pr= evious=20 years I did quite a bit of T/A reception work but now rarely even take= a look at=20 the 'high' watering hole. 
 
Not attempting to police the band but= merely point=20 out the situation. If stations return to the 'low' watering hole I wil= l=20 certainly listen (watch).
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2<= /FONT>
 
    
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 10,= 2009 6:14=20 PM
Subject: LF: Intercontinental= LF=20 waterholes

Dear LF group,
 
recently we find the "transatlantic= waterhole"=20 around 137.777 kHz quite busy. Several Europeans have started beacon= ing within=20 this segment. And there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity,= with wide=20 traces covering up possible transatlantic DX signalling=20 frequencies.
 
During the last years, we have = ;attempted=20 to split the frequency bands for both directions of transa= tlantic=20 work. Traditional segments were around 137.777 kHz west-to= -east (for=20 Americans transmitting towards Eu), and around 136.320 kHz east-west= (for Eu=20 to stateside). Slow modes (Q= RSS or DFCW,=20 60 second and longer) were used almost exclusively there, and= several=20 stations were able to successfully cross the pond in either=20 direction.
 
The situation has become a little= more intricate=20 as more stations from other parts of the world (eg. Asia, China= , Japan)=20 are joining the game with sensitive receivers and good signals. But= I still=20 think it would be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each ar= ea as much=20 as possible.
 
My suggestion would be to stic= k with the=20 east-west versus west-east allocation of the two slots. Taking= into=20 account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that all statio= ns should=20 transmit in the lower band during their evenings until local midnigh= t, and=20 then QSY to the lower band for the rest of the night. Receiver=20 settings would of course be vice versa.
 
I'm aware that this scheme can= not be perfect=20 and universal. It won't cover North-South hauls, and would not=20 protect signals during early or late openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would= still be very=20 useful. Please don't get me wrong= - I do not=20 want to discourage anyone from putting out a signal, and=20 certainly reject the notion of anything reminiscent=20 of a "band police". I just think a little coordination may= help all=20 of us to be successful on this challenging and fascinating= =20 band.
 
Let me have your thoughts...=
 
73 de Markus, DF6NM
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00EC_01CA7A2B.6BFE70E0--