Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67 invoked from network); 16 Jun 1999 16:06:58 -0000 Received: from mashie.force9.net (195.166.128.30) by murphys.force9.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 1999 16:06:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 29033 invoked from network); 15 Jun 1999 07:27:58 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by mashie.force9.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 1999 07:27:57 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10tnae-000133-00; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:25:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13269 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:23:39 GMT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13265 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:23:36 GMT Received: from mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.8.44]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10tnZ3-000124-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:23:22 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be (LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.80.15]) by mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA09342 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:28:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19990615082027.2f0f352c@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> X-Sender: pb623250@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:20:27 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Rik Strobbe" Subject: Re: LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation In-reply-to: <37655BC8.78B9856@cableol.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org At 20:45 14/06/99 +0100, GW4ALG wrote: >I advised the operator that we tend to assume a receive IF bandwidth of >250 Hz and generally aim to maintain a 300 Hz separation from other >stations. (I believe that 300 Hz has been the figure quoted during LF >Group discussions and at the LF Forum.) I hope I did the right thing. > >But with the fancy new receivers now available (which I'll probably >never be able to afford!), does the Group still feel 300 Hz to be a >reasonable separation for normal CW operation? At 22:17 14/06/99 +0100, G4JNT wrote: > >Over 10% of the entire band just to allow guard bands!! > >What is wrong with some post Rx audio filtering - 50Hz BW is hardly >difficult even with analogue filters. > >As I've now given up LF (it's become boring and 'just another operators >band') others can make more valid comments. Maybe here in Belgium I am a bit out of the activity 'epicentrum' (= UK), but so far I cannot remember to have heard more than 4 or 5 stations tranmitting at the same time, so I think most of the time there is no reason to go closer than 300Hz to another station. It is not because 1 operator has an excellent (non ringing !) narrow filter that all the others have it. So my advice : if possible keep 300Hz (or more) away from other stations. If the other station is in QSO (especially with a 'weak' QSO-partner) than even more care should be taken not to 'torpedo' the QSO. 73, Rik