Message-ID: <3A7452E3.3B7D6ADC@usa.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:12:03 +0100
From: "Alberto di Bene" <dibene@usa.net>
Organization: Undisclosed
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Re: This and that
References: <3A7246CB.FF3090A0@alg.demon.co.uk> <3A7322C1.A2927B65@usa.net> <3A73C58C.4B20F438@alg.demon.co.uk>
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>

Steve Rawlings wrote:

> Hi Alberto - Greetings from Chepstow!
>

Hi Steve,
                greetings to you from Casirate, a small village
in Northern Italy.

> [snip]
> So, there you have it.  I am still puzzled: If QRSS only needs a
> 1 Hz bandwidth, why do the 20 or so QRSS operators need a 2.1 kHz
> segment from 135.7 to 137.8 kHz?
> [snip]

I will left to others to answer to this question. I am just (so far) an SWL
on this band, so I am not entitled to judgements on the correctness of
band allocation

[snip]
>        (Of course, with the erosion
> of the guard band 135.8 - 136.0, those with only average CW
> filters have found that much of the lower part of the CW segment
> has been effectively sterilised by the high power stations on
> 135.95.)
[snip]

Here you seem, referring to average CW filters,  to agree with my statement
that mainly the fault lies in the receiver.  With an ideal receiver (which of course
doesn't exist), there would be no problems, provided that the sub-bands were
adhered to.  We need a project for an RX specifically designed for this band,
with at least 110 dB of SFDR (or more...). This would endeth many of
the arguments.

>
> Regards to all,
> Steve GW4ALG

73   Alberto   I2PHD