Message-ID: <3789C4CD.E708851C@phonakcom.ch>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:34:53 +0200
From: "Toni Baertschi" <tonib@phonakcom.ch>
Organization: Phonak Communications AG
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Bandplanning: QRS frequencies ....
References: <3.0.1.16.19990712095928.2e0f2444@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

>From HB9ASB, JN36pt

I think our LF-Band is to narrow to waste some space at the edges or to
reserve band space for future modes. 
For a well equipped station it is absolutely no problem to operate 5 Hz
or closer to the band edge. So we should use also the last 50Hz of the
band for Slow CW operation and we should avoid to split up the band in
small portions for every possible purpose.
To use the low band edge for tests is a good idea and despite the Greek
RTTY station there are still some clean spots down there if you employ
narrow filtering.
 
Regarding the B.W. of the antennas: It's interesting that some stations
have antennas with only 200Hz B.W. How do you get this high Q-value? My
antenna covers the whole band and I'm adjusting the SWR with a
"LF-matchbox" in the shack. This is helpful, when soil condx (dry, wet,
frozen) and nearby trees (summer, winter) are changing the resonance by
several kHz!

I am a little bit surprised to learn, that some stations still working
with Xtals, since it should be cheap, fast and easy to build a stable
VFO for this band. Or am I missing an argument? 

 

73 de Toni