Message-ID: <3A7246CB.FF3090A0@alg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:55:55 +0000
From: "Steve Rawlings" <steve@alg.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "LF Group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: This and that
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>

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