Message-ID: <20081222132320.dyfyc3r7jfccgg0g@webmail5.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:23:20 +0100
From: Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000701c962f1$b79b04c0$4201a8c0@home>
	<016901c963c8$1c543720$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <494EE0A8.5040607@telus.net>
	<004501c963cf$24a20db0$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL>
	<000901c96356$9dffe3e0$4201a8c0@home>
	<006601c96428$a8c6cc80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <006601c96428$a8c6cc80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2)
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


I do not see a problem ...
Almost all "beacon", WSPR, QRSS transmissions have been near the band =20
edges, leaving the centre of the band for CW QSO's.
So far I have noticed only one station that is regulary monopolizing =20
the band by transmitting "lazy men's CW" in the band centre, with a S9 =20
signal.

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

Quoting mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>:

> NO WE DO  NOT WANT THE 3 KHZ AVAILABLE ON 500 SWAMPED WITH UNATTENDED
> BEACONS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE IN REAL TIME QSO'S
> You are not doing anything that cannot be done on CW or qrs cw, which
> takes up a lot less bandwidth.
> There is plenty of spectrum space available on the other MF band ie 160
> metres for your experiments.
> Sri Jim but the beacon business is getting out of hand, especially
> unattended. If there is a QRM problem there is noone about to rectify
> the situation and QSY like one does in real time QSO activity.
> This band needs a rething if Beacons are to continue and probably some
> input to OFCOM for their observations.
> An odd beacon transmission is not objectional but proposing to swamp
> the 500 khz slot with automated modes is.
> In the early days of negiotations with OFCOM the proposed and
> acceptable mode was to be CW and variations thereof ie qrs, in keeping
> with the traditions of the past use by the Marine service.
> They did relent and permit other modes but did not intend the band to
> be swamped with unattended beacons.
>
> de Mal/G3KEV
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Moritz"
> <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:26 AM
> Subject: LF: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
>
>
>> Dear Mark, LF Group,
>>
>> Thanks for the info on reception of the WSPR beacon. It was shut down at
>> about 0830utc.
>>
>> The data from all the receiving stations out as far as TF3HZ at about 180=
0km
>> is so far quite similar, with the SNR figures showing deep fades, as one
>> would expect. Curiously, there does not seem to be a major difference in=20=
the
>> SNR figures recorded at different distances.
>>
>> So far, both myself and previously G0NBD have been copied in the USA usin=
g
>> WSPR - I think this is both the stations that have actually tried, and
>> positive reports have come within a couple of attempts, so this looks lik=
e a
>> quite viable mode for transatlantic beacons. Although the band allocation=
s
>> do not align between UK and US, I think it should be possible to operate
>> split-frequency to produce a bi-directional trans-atlantic WSPR beacon
>> network. Anyone interested?
>>
>> Cheers, Jim Moritz
>> 73 de M0BMU
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1859 - Release Date:
> 12/20/2008 2:34 PM



Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm