From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:22:47 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4B221D77.23434.434B0D@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
In-reply-to: <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White>
References: <BC520BF69FBC4F4B9B8E1C9B8AAB8A9B@White>, <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Markus is absolutely right. This should reduce QRM for those 
monitoring for DX, and improve the chance of two-way DX QSOs. 
However, I think many stations have recently used the upper slot 
because most grabbers are set for this area (except Markus's own 
excellent system). Is it possible for more grabbers to be dual 
frequency?

Mke, G3XDV
==========


On 11 Dec 2009 at 9:38, Markus Vester wrote:

> Dear LF,
> 
> the passage should have said:
> 
> Taking into account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that
> all stations should transmit in the UPPER band during their evenings
> until local midnight, and then QSY to the lower band for the rest of
> the night. 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> 73, Markus 
> 
> 
> From: Markus Vester 
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:14 AM
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org 
> Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
> 
> 
> Dear LF group,
> 
> recently we find the "transatlantic waterhole" around 137.777 kHz
> quite busy. Several Europeans have started beaconing within this
> segment. And there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, with
> wide traces covering up possible transatlantic DX signalling
> frequencies.
> 
> During the last years, we have attempted to split the frequency bands
> for both directions of transatlantic work. Traditional segments were
> around 137.777 kHz west-to-east (for Americans transmitting towards
> Eu), and around 136.320 kHz east-west (for Eu to stateside). Slow
> modes (QRSS or DFCW, 60 second and longer) were used almost
> exclusively there, and several stations were able to successfully
> cross the pond in either direction.
> 
> The situation has become a little more intricate as more stations from
> other parts of the world (eg. Asia, China, Japan) are joining the game
> with sensitive receivers and good signals. But I still think it would
> be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much as
> possible. 
> 
> My suggestion would be to stick with the east-west versus west-east
> allocation of the two slots. Taking into account the path of mutual
> darkness, this would mean that all stations should transmit in the
> lower band during their evenings until local midnight, and then QSY to
> the lower band for the rest of the night. Receiver settings would of
> course be vice versa.
> 
> I'm aware that this scheme cannot be perfect and universal. It won't
> cover North-South hauls, and would not protect signals during early or
> late openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would still be
> very useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discourage
> anyone from putting out a signal, and certainly reject the notion of
> anything reminiscent of a "band police". I just think a little
> coordination may help all of us to be successful on this challenging
> and fascinating band.
> 
> Let me have your thoughts...
> 
> 73 de Markus, DF6NM
> 
> http://freenet-homepage.de/df6nm/Grabber.htm
>