Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 574133800009D; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 06:23:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TroIc-0004Wu-Qb for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:21:54 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TroIb-0004Wl-SP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:21:53 +0000 Received: from nm4-vm0.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([77.238.189.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TroIY-0000RF-TE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:21:52 +0000 Received: from [77.238.189.53] by nm4.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 11:21:29 -0000 Received: from [212.82.108.125] by tm6.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 11:21:28 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1034.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 11:21:28 -0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=yahoo.co.uk Result=Good and Known Domain X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 440381.63108.bm@omp1034.mail.ird.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 24463 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jan 2013 11:21:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1357471288; bh=FghdNXX49xekD4cBE9BIDqKN9teu2RPwkmgt2+2UVgg=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=yN0fI3XBT5kESFScODF+OYtHyQ7+DrGx0UZJfWPOJO3xTtBe0s5W0oCoHKTcA1qx+iztSWWyR6xIZs98GVLMaYsi1zNRvzetX0WrwzpSeI9V9Qr2hdrw9BK4vifEGf0qP3vwlwixSS6EWjzvB790rbnB3abSdrJHjdEW6mSfTts= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jjXPQoxAMMtlq329iFEjW9e8QSlYeg5ECXnc9ZnzTIgEwoMKPh4/PMUSpvVTlNHErPwSAwC6P0RFOougi7zarpoS/KaUQdQjsV/q0Ko01piVl1iMxWXtUxb32qeZ7Xq2rka5fPP0q0uiTEWdYBDSC9xVjddCMq34cqlO4azJXMo=; X-YMail-OSG: OjVx6AkVM1k7IbblhzHW_GVxroP5kuaQ1xgi71Ns0SzzxML HrBytvbsEVv8Prpr.4IiDBDP1prgX19uIYCMO5V6bEFG3tj4H2XFJOKAjzDL u3K4wdNjFQhA.DIzD._Bwjn6tCVUu1seR7rtPhqkvqOPUdSbQGnFShNus5i2 vsCGbE9D_po2CsQWDLxtZWKGEzILMyodImZytv8IPNMpgpAKy6_qYz06BnVb XX851drQ5tAXy1yfAjz4DOxGYLBng.9wcyko3mP8aZVVJ4.pXfEc1Ki3Pk7C XICfkpaSZ9xLz6zoMxO9FckrER6LGM3Pp2BaQfpbVkRfCgF2vvdKRKPrw7ST kU.lTGgP7BMA9QHnR_JjqsHd7zXHA2aH1StjkjK0j550_jdrNldRuk_AR94b MOmwgCw..bwTE6UdFbFbVWcFEDsq__uFXTm8uKP8Zi7AmPpvdPZyNB_nNRER CaiCDHGwFsJ1Y_zls8aSidcXBlNnObihyiYQXgBPWNXRit0n.d.5qloG65Kf 2qndhFUi4zrMw1RR_AKiXcwkxo9g._yMR.CbNn.hHNTIcVHzzRFWWGU6iYz9 VSJs09HYNtnKsL80W Received: from [31.51.111.124] by web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:21:28 GMT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,T0sgQ2hyaXMKwqAKSSByZXRyYWN0IC4uLnNvcnJ5IGFnYWluIS4uLi4gCgo3MyBlcyBHTCBQZXRlIE0wRk1UIElPOTFVWAoKCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwo.IEZyb206IENocmlzIDxjLmFzaGJ5NDM1QGJ0aW50ZXJuZXQuY29tPgo.VG86IHJzZ2JfbGZfZ3JvdXBAYmxhY2tzaGVlcC5vcmcgCj5TZW50OiBTdW5kYXksIDYgSmFudWFyeSAyMDEzLCA5OjU5Cj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTEY6IDQ3MmtIeiBCYW5kIFFSU1MKPiAgCj4KPiAKPkhpIFN0ZWZhbiwgCj5JIGFncmVlIHdpdGgBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.129.483 References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C> <50E86576.7020106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: <1357471288.20075.YahooMailNeo@web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:21:28 +0000 (GMT) From: M0FMT To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: OK Chris I retract ...sorry again!.... 73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX > > From: Chris >To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 9:59 >Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS > > > >Hi Stefan, >I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense to have QRSS near the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with your suggestion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, filters easily take care of that one! There are also two edges of the band! >I also heard the AM in the middle of the band late afternoon yesterday. It didn't cause a problem here with anything, again, I agree with Chris, XIZ. If anything, it was the other way round, the very strong QRSS carriers were QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are planning some QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as far as possible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do this. >There will always be the odd rogue who goes totally over the top, there are amateurs near me who regularly and quite openly use powers well in excess of the legal limit on topband. That's life. >Pete, FMT, I really think you have totally lost the plot now. I didn't realise how anti-RSGB you are, but maybe this is not the place to express such exaggerated and blatently absurd opinions? I joined the RSGB last year after several contributors on here suggested I was 'getting a free ride' at their expense. >Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, JO01MI. >----- Original Message ----- >>From: Stefan Schäfer >>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 PM >>Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS >> >>Hi Chris, >> >>Which kind of amateur radio activity did you plan to that time that became actually impossible due to the QRSS stations? Why were the QRSS stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And the NDBs with their carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRSS stations? >> >>Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris: >> >>>Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? >>It was me who started [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [77.238.189.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (m0fmt[at]yahoo.co.uk) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 2015a9c9c70c0326c96b00c8a41f50f5 Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="856002529-1460855148-1357471288=:20075" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-dd01.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : yahoo.co.uk DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d408d50e95ea56d17 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --856002529-1460855148-1357471288=:20075 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK Chris=0A=A0=0AI retract ...sorry again!.... =0A=0A73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO= 91UX=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: Chris =0A>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =0A>Sent: Sunday, 6 Jan= uary 2013, 9:59=0A>Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS=0A> =0A>=0A> =0A>Hi S= tefan, =0A>I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense to have =0AQRSS near= the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with your =0Asuggest= ion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, filters =0Aeas= ily take care of that one! There are also two edges of the band! =0A>I also= heard the AM in the middle of the band late =0Aafternoon yesterday. It did= n't cause a problem here with anything, again, I =0Aagree with Chris, XIZ. = If anything, it was the other way round, the very strong =0AQRSS carriers w= ere QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are =0Aplanning so= me QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as far as =0Aposs= ible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do this. =0A>There wil= l always be the odd rogue who goes totally =0Aover the top, there are amate= urs near me who regularly and quite openly use =0Apowers well in excess of = the legal limit on topband. That's life. =0A>Pete, FMT, I really think you = have totally lost the =0Aplot now. I didn't realise how anti-RSGB you are, = but maybe this is not the =0Aplace to express such exaggerated and blatentl= y absurd opinions? I joined the =0ARSGB last year after several contributor= s on here suggested I=A0was 'getting =0Aa free ride' at their expense. =0A>= Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, =0AJO01MI. =0A>----- Original Message ----= - =0A>>From: Stefan Sch=E4fer =0A>>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =0A>= >Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 PM =0A>>Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Ban= d QRSS =0A>>=0A>>Hi Chris, =0A>>=0A>>Which kind of amateur radio activity d= id you =0A plan to that time that became actually impossible due to the QR= SS stations? =0A Why were the QRSS stations a problem but the WSPR station= s not? And the NDBs =0A with their carrier and two sidebands? No problem? = Only the QRSS stations? =0A>>=0A>>Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris: =0A>>= =0A>>>Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band?= =0A>>It was me who started =0A the trend to do QRSS-10 in that range. =0A>= >=0A>>The intention was to give QRSS =0A stations a "playing field" which = is outside the CW QSO range. There have been =0A QRSS transmissions arroun= d the lower end of the band, which caused =0A interference to the CW stati= ons. QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on MF, allows to =0A study QSB phenomena a= nd do some QRPP tests and so on...=0A>>A few minutes ago =0A it was intere= sting to see the QSB delay between PA3CPM and PA3FNY =0A here!=0A>>=0A>>It= is no problem to move that QRSS range but there should be a =0A real reas= on. And the reason should be explained with some examples of actual =0A am= ateur activity insead of theoretical considerations. BTW it was not my =0A = suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5 kHz ;-) = =0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>There are two extremely strong signals there now as I = write this. Was it QRSS or the NDB or maybe WSPR, which is just 500 Hz low= er? I think it is not unusual to see strong signals on that band.=0A>>=0A>= >=0A>>I would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers woul= d be better suited to near the band edges. =0A>>>Three German operators su= ggested a band plan during late September, in which QRSS was near the bott= om of the band. CW is the only mode that is actually practised (on the band= , not in email discussions!) by a number of stations which requires EARS in= stead of a computer to decode the information. So this is a real reason to= protect the CW region from other signals which would all cause interferen= ce to them.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>As far as I remember this plan was met with some= hostility. =0A>>>It has been suggested that people will not stick to a ba= nd plan. I find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of QRSS, if = they want their signals to be found. =0A>>>Another problem I would suggest,= is just how many know how to measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed= several contributors to this reflector refer to ERP. =0A>>>Food for thoug= ht?http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff=0A>>=0A>>That's =0A just my= personal point of view. As said, the intention was to give QRSS =0A stati= ons a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the lower end is not =0A = further disturbed. After all i think we can all work together on that band = =0A without stress. At least if no one will come and say "but i want to ha= ve the =0A upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)=0A>>=0A>>73, Stefan/DK7F= C=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Vy 73, =0A>>>Chris, =0AG4AYT. =0A>=0A> --856002529-1460855148-1357471288=:20075 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK Chris
=
 
I retract ...sorry again!....
73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91U= X
From: Chris <c.ashby435@btinternet.com>=
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <= br> Sent: Sunday, 6 Januar= y 2013, 9:59
Subject: = Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS

=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A
Hi Stefan,
=0A
I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense t= o have =0AQRSS near the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree w= ith your =0Asuggestion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operat= ion, filters =0Aeasily take care of that one! There are also two edges of t= he band!
=0A
I also heard t= he AM in the middle of the band late =0Aafternoon yesterday. It didn't caus= e a problem here with anything, again, I =0Aagree with Chris, XIZ. If anyth= ing, it was the other way round, the very strong =0AQRSS carriers were QRMi= ng the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are =0Aplanning some QRP A= M and will take care not to interfere with others as far as =0Apossible. Th= e centre of the band is the logical place to do this.
=0A
<= font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">There will always be the odd rogue who goes = totally =0Aover the top, there are amateurs near me who regularly and quite= openly use =0Apowers well in excess of the legal limit on topband. That's = life.
=0A
Pete, FMT, I real= ly think you have totally lost the =0Aplot now. I didn't realise how anti-R= SGB you are, but maybe this is not the =0Aplace to express such exaggerated= and blatently absurd opinions? I joined the =0ARSGB last year after severa= l contributors on here suggested I was 'getting =0Aa free ride' at the= ir expense.
=0A
Vy 73, Chri= s, G4AYT, Whitstable, =0AJO01MI.
=0A
=0A
----- Original Message -----
=0A From: =0A Stefan Sch=E4fer
=0A = =0A
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 =0A PM
= =0A
Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS
=0A
Hi Chris,

Which kind of amateur radio activity did you =0A = plan to that time that became actually impossible due to the QRSS stations?= =0A Why were the QRSS stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And t= he NDBs =0A with their carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRS= S stations? =0A

Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris: =0A =0A =0A =0A=0A
Who started the trend to have QRSS in the =0A middle o= f the 'new' band?

It was me who started =0A t= he trend to do QRSS-10 in that range.

The intention was to give QRS= S =0A stations a "playing field" which is outside the CW QSO range. There = have been =0A QRSS transmissions arround the lower end of the band, which = caused =0A interference to the CW stations. QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on = MF, allows to =0A study QSB phenomena and do some QRPP tests and so on...<= br>A few minutes ago =0A it was interesting to see the QSB delay between P= A3CPM and PA3FNY =0A here!

It is no problem to move that QRSS range= but there should be a =0A real reason. And the reason should be explained= with some examples of actual =0A amateur activity insead of theoretical c= onsiderations. BTW it was not my =0A suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.= 7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5 kHz ;-) =0A


=0A
=0A
There are two extreme= ly strong signals there =0A now as I write this.
Was it QRSS or the NDB or maybe =0A WSPR, which is just 500 Hz lower? I= think it is not unusual to see strong =0A signals on that band.

= =0A
=0A
= I would have thought any mode that requires =0A long plain carriers woul= d be better suited to near the band =0A edges.
=0A
<= font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">Three German operators suggested a band plan= =0A during late September, in which QRSS was near the bottom of the ban= d. =0A
CW is the only mode that is actually= practised =0A (on the band, not in email discussions!) by a number= of stations =0A which requires EARS instead of a computer to decode t= he information. So this =0A is a real reason to protect the CW region from= other signals which would all =0A cause interference to them.

=0A =
=0A
As f= ar as I remember this plan was met with =0A some hostility.
= =0A
It has been suggested that peop= le will not =0A stick to a band plan. I find this hard to believe, parti= cularly in respect =0A of QRSS, if they want their signals to be found.<= /font>
=0A
Another problem I w= ould suggest, is just how =0A many know how to measure/calculate their E= IRP? I have noticed several =0A contributors to this reflector refer to = ERP.
=0A
Food for thoug= ht?
http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff

That's= =0A just my personal point of view. As said, the intention was to give QR= SS =0A stations a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the lower end= is not =0A further disturbed. After all i think we can all work together = on that band =0A without stress. At least if no one will come and say "but= i want to have the =0A upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)

73, = Stefan/DK7FC


=0A
=0A
Vy 73,
=0A
Chris, =0AG4AYT.
= =0A

--856002529-1460855148-1357471288=:20075--