Return-Path: Received: from mtain-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.85]) by air-da02.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDA021-85e44cdfc59427b; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:18:44 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A4825380000FF; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PHaZs-0002er-Fj for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:16:56 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PHaZr-0002eh-SE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:16:55 +0000 Received: from imr-ma03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.41]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PHaZo-0003Sa-OI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:16:55 +0000 Received: from mtaout-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.195]) by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oAEBGlSo005709 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:16:48 -0500 Received: from White (nrbg-4d075c85.pool.mediaWays.net [77.7.92.133]) by mtaout-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id A10BEE0000F4 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:16:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2BE70532063C4C12A0E3AD8515E27D57@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <4CDEC5B8.17075.79A05A@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>, <4CDF089E.4090604@gmx.de> <4CDFBCBE.5787.60D7DE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01CB83F5.D837E8C0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40554cdfc5914f12 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CB83F5.D837E8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Mike, first of all, let me say that your signal has never created any proble= m here, and I appreciate your careful choice of operating techniques= to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, there were= only very few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and France wher= e being desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. But on= the other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much closer= to you. I also completely understand your point about the lack of feedback fro= m grabbers operating in the designated Eu slot. In the past, we were= rewarded by excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence. In= my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF grabber op= erator to include an Eu slot as well. Regarding choice of frequency: If I remember right, we went from the= original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because the latter provided a larger= gap between American Loran lines - which is no more an issue now. But= recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0 has been reactivated. How= much does it affect stateside reception on 136.32? If they continue,= we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom end.=20 Kind regards, Markus (DF6NM) From: Mike Dennison=20 Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k' Hartmut, You are right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons=20 should be in that part of the band. However, the reality is that no- one is listening there (apart from a couple of Eu grabbers). There=20 are grabbers in Alaska, Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but= =20 not one covers the 136.320kHz sub-band. That sub-band was originally created when there were many Eu (mostly= =20 UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast of America= - there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs. The idea= =20 of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QRM to=20 each other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in DX=20 working, and seemingly no east coast American stations routinely=20 monitoring. =20 I try not to QRM those Eu stations who are monitoring for US and=20 Russian beacons. This is achieved by not beaconing every day, and by= =20 not beaconing continuously (which is why I synchronise each=20 transmission with the start of each hour). My frequency is much lower= =20 than most US and Russian beacons. I have also announced that if my=20 transmissions cause anyone any problems, I will close down. In=20 practice, unless the receiving station is within about 150km of me=20 there is little chance of real QRM - last night EW6GB was fully=20 readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM and OE3GHB. There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during two-way DX QSOs,=20 or tests involving lots of activity. I will be the first to use it=20 again if any DX stations are prepared to monitor it. Does anyone else have a view on this? Mike, G3XDV =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CB83F5.D837E8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mike,
 
first of all, let me say that your si= gnal has never=20 created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice of oper= ating=20 techniques to mitigate potential interference. As=20 far as I could see, there were only very few occasions,=20 when spectrograms in Holland and France where being=20 desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. B= ut on the=20 other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much closer= to=20 you.
 
I also co= mpletely=20 understand your point about the lack of feedback from grabbers op= erating in=20 the designated Eu slot. In the past, we were rewarded b= y=20 excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence. In my opinion,= the point=20 of the story is to motivate every LF grabber operator to include an&nb= sp;Eu slot=20 as well.
 
Regarding choice of frequency: If I= remember right,=20 we went from the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because the=20 latter provided a larger gap between American Loran lines - which= is no=20 more an issue now. But recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0= has been=20 reactivated. How much does it affect stateside reception on 136.3= 2? If they=20 continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom=20 end. 
 
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k'
=
Hartmut,

You are=20 right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons
should= be in that=20 part of the band. However, the reality is that no-
one is listening= there=20 (apart from a couple of Eu grabbers). There
are grabbers in Alaska= , Western=20 Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but
not one covers the 136.320kHz= =20 sub-band.

That sub-band was originally created when there were= many Eu=20 (mostly
UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast= of America=20 -
 there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs.= The idea=20
of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QRM to=
each=20 other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in DX
working= , and=20 seemingly no east coast American stations routinely
monitoring.&nb= sp;=20

I try not to QRM those Eu stations who are monitoring for US= and=20
Russian beacons. This is achieved by not beaconing every day, and= by
not=20 beaconing continuously (which is why I synchronise each
transmissi= on with=20 the start of each hour). My frequency is much lower
than most US= and Russian=20 beacons. I have also announced that if my
transmissions cause anyo= ne any=20 problems, I will close down. In
practice, unless the receiving sta= tion is=20 within about 150km of me
there is little chance of real QRM - last= night=20 EW6GB was fully
readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF= 6NM and=20 OE3GHB.

There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during two-= way DX=20 QSOs,
or tests involving lots of activity. I will be the first to= use it=20
again if any DX stations are prepared to monitor it.

Does= anyone else=20 have a view on this?

Mike, G3XDV
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CB83F5.D837E8C0--