Message-ID: <3A325CDF.45D9C49A@alg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:25:03 +0000
From: "Steve Rawlings" <steve@alg.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: 136 kHz transmission  tests
References: <XFMail.001206003115.cla.po@tiscalinet.it> <3A2F4439.6553B511@alg.demon.co.uk> <3A301459.F38C5F40@tiscalinet.it>
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>

Hello Claudio!

> In my usual home I have two other Xtals, one for 135.975 kHz 
> and the other one for 137.525 kHz. May be that one of those is
> good for a beacon? For the next week-end I change the frequency
> according yours suggestions.
It is my understanding that, where possible, operators try to use
the following suggested bandplan:
135.7 to 135.8: QRSS ('visual CW')
135.7 to 136.0: TX tests & beacons
136.0 to 137.4: Normal ('conventional') CW
137.4 to 137.6: Data modes
137.6 to 137.8: QRSS ('visual CW')

This plan is working well in this part of Europe, and helps to
separate incompatible modes.

It seems to me that you could use either 135.975 kHz or 137.525
kHz for your tests.  But, I agree with Dave when he wrote "If the
only crystal you have falls in the wrong part of the band, don't
be afraid to put out a call.  I don't want to discourage anyone
from coming on!" [Dave Pick, G3YXM, 'LF' column, RadCom, January
2000].

Here in the UK, we don't use beacons on 136 kHz any more.  We
just plug in the key and have some QSOs  :-)  

The higher level of activity here means that a beacon operating
for long periods on 136.375 from the UK could cause a lot of
QRM.  But perhaps the situation is different in Italy.  

Good luck with your tests, Claudio.  (Be sure to spend enough
time trying to make 2-way QSOs!)

Regards to all,
Steve GW4ALG