From: "Gary - G4WGT" <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <20090125092908.0aec06a4@lurcher><7EC707A6E2D94414AEBBC52C6159581C@JimPC><AAD643EEA70C4FC99B4B3E17041C8F54@JimPC><002001c97f0a$cf16fac0$ae01a8c0@youry0mkaz8jaq><20090125165335.47fc3399@lurcher><7690F13DCE5D44BA8A5AA126607E7979@JimPC><fc7eccec0901250940p388c4cb0gb9d3ed78cb605393@mail.gmail.com> <20090125180430.1d63e1c7@lurcher> <6449616DC58940A19C537A59F53828DA@AGB> <00d201c97f20$bd909520$6401a8c0@asus> <EEACEE2E6F034BDEAD5A00E8547FF820@AGB>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:45:44 -0000
Message-ID: <00f101c97f2d$e530b440$6401a8c0@asus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EEACEE2E6F034BDEAD5A00E8547FF820@AGB>
Thread-Index: Acl/K+prL15Yq9ONR6Coz7uO2eH3WAAAGTgQ
Subject: RE: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Graham, LF,

I do agree that ERP is more meaningful & as Mal & Andy stated it is the
criteria with which the licence is approved.

My comment was to follow the WSPR recommended method as adopting ERP would
mean there are two "standards".

I ERP is adopted for LF then it should be international & not just UK, so an
official announcement by the main WSPR group would be required.
Comments please.

Gary - G4WGT.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Graham
Sent: 25 January 2009 20:29
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5

Gary,

I don't think a guard band is really needed as if you set the centre carrier

frequency to  503.9 , then operating at the extreme edges is not really 
possible, you're  right on the edge of the waterfall. the deviation is only 
round  6 hz

Re power .. I would say, the erp  is the most meaningful,  actual  power 
supplied to the antenna without the performance data of the array doesn't 
really mean too much ?

G ..

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary - G4WGT" <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:11 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: RE: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5

>
> Hi All,
>
> In agreement with John & Graham, I believe that makes sense. The top part 
> of
> the band is probably the least used area so we just need to agree on a 
> 200Hz
> slot of either 503.800 to 504.000KHz with no guard band or 503.700 to
> 503.900KHz with a 100Hz guard band.
>
> My WSPR beacon is now active using dial frequency 502.000KHz & 503.550KHz
> data.
>
> Looks like Andy just beat me to the announcement.
>
> 73
>
> Gary - G4WGT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Graham
> Sent: 25 January 2009 18:32
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
>
> John,
>
> Looks close to  my post , just, as wspr is such a narrow mode, could move 
> to
>
> the band edge without problems
> clear of the occasional  qrss slightly lower down
>
> With a move to vfo/exciter control,  defining the wspr slot is a 
> reasonable
> concept as it will allow other 'casual'
> monitor stations to  be established .. and negate the number of post 
> needed
> to  announce a test !
>
> What of the beacons that used this area of the band , are they qrt or just
> sleeping ?
>
> G ..
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "John P-G" <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:04 PM
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
>
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:40:27 +0000
>> Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there some sort of unofficial bandplan on this band?
>>
>> Oh no!
>>
>> Please let's not get into this again....
>>
>> At the moment there is no bandplan, but general concensus would
>> indicate "beacons at the band edges - real QSOs in the middle".
>>
>> The current WSPR activity around 503.5 (502.0 dial) seems reasonable,
>> although moving up a few hundred Hz wouldn't hurt, say to 502.3 dial
>> which gives a 200Hz window at 503.7 - 503.9
>>
>> There are often CW mode beacons near the bottom of the band - GI4DPE,
>> GW3UEP and others, and it's convenient to have them there - it allows
>> monitoring them and SK6RUD concurrently.
>>
>>
>> That's just my view on how things have evolved.
>>
>> "Real Man's CW" seems to live around 502.63
>>
>> John
>> GM4SLV
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date:
>> 1/24/2009 20:40
>>
>
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date: 
> 1/24/2009 20:40
>