Message-ID: <47CA8EC1.2040300@freenet.de>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:25:53 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_B=FCscher?= <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <47CA6104.25600.355B36@localhost> <47CA86FF.16328.C9BA43@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <47CA86FF.16328.C9BA43@localhost>
Subject: Re: LF: 136: Germans?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hello Mike,

Thanks for the information. QRSS wouldn't be a problem, I was thinking 
about normal CW like in the good old day..
> (30kHz low of the 
> 'recommended centre of activity') to avoid the DCF39 QRM.
That would put you outside my RX passband, and dangerously close to 
Loran ;-)
Joking aside, 30 Hz below the 137.7 kHz is a clearer spot. DF6NM's 
RDF-grabber nicely shows the spectral nulls of the new QRM (the violet 
QRM on the upper end of the band from Burg, and the red QRM on the lower 
end from Budapest).

>  Is there a 
> better part of the band at your end? Should we be discussing a 
> quieter QRSS sub-band nearer 137.0kHz?
>
>   
I don't think so, since for TA/DX there are enough narrow clear spots 
for QRSS10...QRSS60 (see note above).
For traditional CW, 136.8 ... 137.0 seems to be the quietest place (at 
least in this part of EU) which offers 100...200 Hz bandwidth for easier 
listening.

> Does the QRM affect your reception of USA DX? Do we need a new DX sub-
> band?
>
>   
The DCF QRM does affect it bit, but the effect of (very) local QRM is 
more dramatic, and very broad-band. Almost impossible to avoid (without 
a few hundred meters of cable or UHF link). A new DX sub-band would not 
cure this problem, at least not here.


GL and hope to CU later,

73,  Wolf .