Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010127101850.008884c0@pop3.esoterica.pt>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:18:50 +0000
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Brian Rogerson" <brian@esoterica.pt>
Subject: Re: LF: This and that
In-reply-to: <3A7246CB.FF3090A0@alg.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hi all,

I say again there is no amateur ativity AT ALL in this area.  I have put
an enormous investment in time and effort to putting CT on the map
and I have had only ONE QSO.  If all this is the result of that one QSO
I would ask those making all this noise to examine their consciences
and ask what you expect me to be doing next?  I will abide by a democratic
decision.

Brian


At 03:55 27/01/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>> Also, a warm welcome to Bill G6NB who has recently joined this
>> Reflector.
>Bill, a keen LF experimenter since July 1998, has now 
>'u n s u b s c r i b e d' from the LF Group.  I last worked Bill
>on 30th December, RST 579 both ways.
>
>Brian wrote:
>> To add to the current discussion, I find it quite strange there is 
>> an argument at all.  I doubt if there is any activity within a radius 
>> of 500Km and not too much within 1000Km. 
>In common with several other LF experimenters in the UK, I have
>four 1W QRSS stations within 200 km of my QTH.  Now, consider the
>impact when a high power QRSS operator fires up on 136.5:  CW
>operators with average receive filters will find that the
>resulting S9 + 20 dB signal effectively 'sterilises' the band
>from 136.2 to 136.8 kHz for several hours.  In addition, the
>almost constant S9 + 20 dB QRSS on 135.9 already sterilises the
>band up to 136.2 - depending, of course, on the shape factor of
>the IF filter in use.  
>
>Rik wrote:
>> . . .  I do not thing that QRSS is to blame for it.  Apart from one
>> case of unintentional QRM (where apologies were given and
>> accepted) there has been one weekend that many of us were looking 
>> for QRSS signals on 136.5kHz. All QRSS transmitting actvities (in
>> Europe) have either been below 136.0 or above 137.6kHz.
>If only this were true.   Although G3LDO later apologised for
>running QRSS on 136.5, it was a hollow apology.  Within a couple
>of weeks
>he was at it again - this time on 136.4 kHz (with no apology).  I
>have certainly heard QRSS on 137.0 and, last weekend, there were
>also two QRSS signals on 136.3 kHz.  The regular TV watchers can
>probably cite more instances.  On the other hand, I have _never_
>heard any CW in the QRSS segment.  
>
>Rik wrote:
>> I see no reason why QRSS and CW can not co-exist.
>Unfortunately, these two modes are incompatible: they have to be
>separated through band-planning.  You would have to be a CW
>operator to fully appreciate the limitations of CW filters when
>an S9 + 20 dB carrier suddenly appears 200 Hz away from the
>wanted S3 signal.
>
>Rik wrote:
>> One of the most facinating aspects of amateur radio is 'breaking
>> frontiers' and that is excatly what the QRSS transatlantic tests 
>> are all about.
>I agree.  But, if QRSS is such an ideal mode, why do QRSS
>operators need to use the whole of our tiny 2.1 kHz allocation to
>do it?
>
>John wrote:
>> Don't let's start slagging one or another off.  Surely one critic is
>> enough, if not too many.  I don't hear all that much activity on the
>> band most days anyway.  There is surely room for all interests. 
>And, surely, one lid operator is one too many also!  Yes, there
>would be enough room, if only it were used wisely.  
>
>Dave wrote:
>> I am sorry that Steve feels the band has become unfriendly in the UK
>I'm not sure that a 'band' can be unfriendly.  It's _people_ that
>matter.  There's nothing friendly about the bully boy tactics
>currently employed by the UK QRSS fraternity. 
>
>G3LDO (who admits to being the demon QRSSer of East Preston)
>wrote:
>> For those who are anti-QRSS I would suggest they get a copy of ARGO.
>Personally, I am not aware of anyone who is anti-QRSS.  But I
>know several people who are fed up with lid operators such as
>G3LDO running QRSS in the CW segment of the 136 kHz band.
>
>Regards to all
>Steve GW4ALG
>
>
>
73 Brian     CT1DRP     IN51QD     41 09 58N  08 39 11W
http://homepage.esoterica.pt/~brian