Message-ID: <20120703142038.18961xrt1rdll50k@w3mail.netikka.fi>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:20:38 +0300
From: phl@netikka.fi
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <28dc10e999b947e7b82780908099d175@kabelmail.de>
 <448357689.187186.1341296605400.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net>
 <4FF2C868.3050700@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FF2C868.3050700@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.11)
Subject: Re: LF: MF, center of activity QRG
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8;
 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
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60554ff2d5c42dd2
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hello Stefan, MF

Previously I did quite a lot of listening between 472 and 479 kHz due =20
to the new (and final) allocation proposal. Back then my own =20
conclusion was that 472.5 kHz +/- would be the ideal "default" =20
CW-frequency as seen from here i OH since it is the only slot offering =20
NDB-QRM free reception in normal CW-filter bandwidths.

Daytime the whole band is empty up here, but during the "MF season", =20
as propagation kicks in from the east it starts filling up pretty =20
quickly with NDB's.

This is no vote for a bandplan, just saying that what is going on at =20
the moment seems to work well for now, as seen from here.

BR

Paul-Henrik, OH1LSQ


Quoting Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>:

> Hi Edgar, MF
>
> I've often seen activity on 472.6 kHz on the DM4TR grabber. But why =20
> 472.6 and not 472.5 kHz? Sould be no problem for a 500 Hz CW filter =20
> but if people use a narrow filter, maybe 150 Hz BW, then someone =20
> could be missed.
>
> I would agree to a center frequency of activity of 472.5 kHz and =20
> intend to call there from now on as well. However i'm afraid that =20
> collisions may occurr, due to the weak signals and QRN and =20
> propagation effects...
>
> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>
>
> Am 03.07.2012 08:23, schrieb dl2hre@arcor.de:
>>
>> hallo Uwe, LF/MF
>>
>> DJ5BV Gerd is in JO30ki, i wkd him in normal cw 24.06. 472,6KHz
>>
>> 73 cul
>> Edgar DL2HRE in JO51tq
>>
>> ----- Original Nachricht ----
>> Von:     uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de
>> An:      rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>> Datum:   02.07.2012 15:03
>> Betreff: Re: LF: FW: DJ5BV...
>>
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>>  <Is this now the de-facto centre of CW activity on this band?
>>>  my RX is tuned to 472.5kHz 24hs. but Im not 24hs in the shack.
>>>
>>>  last night I could hear DJ5BV too. he/she was 599 here in jo43sv.
>>>
>>>  GL
>>>  Uwe/dj8wx
>>>   Von: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>  Gesendet: 01.07.2012 22:22
>>>  An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>  Betreff: LF: FW: DJ5BV...
>>>
>>>  This e-mail got bounced from the Yahoo Group, so I've sent it to the B=
lack
>>>  Sheep reflector instead.
>>>
>>>  Seems like I've been unsubscribed from Yahoo...
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: Dave G3WCB. [mailto:ganymede444@btopenworld.com]
>>>  Sent: 01 July 2012 22:15
>>>  To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
>>>  Subject: DJ5BV...
>>>
>>>  Dear MF,
>>>
>>>  I just copied DJ5BV calling CQ on 472.63 kHz. RST 449, lots of QRN.
>>>
>>>  Is this now the de-facto centre of CW activity on this band?
>>>
>>>  73, Dave G3WCB IO91RV, Nr Windsor, S.E. England.
>>>
>
>