Message-ID: <4D145A2E.4080706@telus.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:30:38 +0000
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4D122CE9.26517.19CC01F@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AE9BD@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> <E93ACBBD7EA842B0AB8E3A577C3F41CA@IBM7FFA209F07C> <776F8577325D4C4881D6DFA12096E0D3@AGB> <001601cba2cc$b7138910$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <1293134076.24424.16.camel@pat-compaq-evo> <000701cba312$63924420$0301a8c0@your91hoehfy9g>
In-Reply-To: <000701cba312$63924420$0301a8c0@your91hoehfy9g>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
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


Gee Mal with all that SKILL I wonder why we haven't seen you here yet?

The only QRM I see is the constant BS beacon from Scarborough on this 
reflector.  Too bad you don't beacon your drivel on 2200m as even if the 
content was your usual high level of nonsense it may help establish the 
viability of unproven paths.

But that would require real SKILL to do it... And you lack it.

Now speaking to the real hams on the reflector...

Personally, I don't care what someone sends as long as their doing 
something on the band with some aim.  If they choose to send a signal 
char to conduct an experiment so what?  Usually there's someone in the 
know on the other end anyway...?  A single char transmitted at a precise 
time and QRG is really a source encoded signal and very handy for 
testing an extreme path like G/VE7.  But that's a concept lost on poor 
old Mal.

I found a handshake process of sending the suffix useful as a way of 
beginning a QSO sequence for extreme DX QSOs.  We even used a single 
letter as a means of testing prop on the VE7/ZL path.  Both stations 
would alternate sending the first letter in their call. Then upon 
receipt the the station would change from sending their letter to the 
letter copied.  This if copied by the other station would start a full 
call exchange at usually a higher speed...

The JAs and I evolved this into using the suffixes in 15min RX/TX 
cycles.  Once we had the QSB patterns mapped we completed a QSO.

Unlike high speed ditty dotty dementia exchanges, slow speed exchanges 
require a much deeper level of study as you're not committing to a 
couple minutes (more like seconds) of focus, but an entire night, week 
of nights or months of nights...!  I personally know the toll that takes 
on family, work and everything else so testing before you commit to the 
grueling slog is critical.

73 Scott
VE7TIL






On 12/24/2010 2:29 AM, mal hamilton wrote:
> I am not the only one that has expressed an opinion about a proper ID
> procedure on LF. Address your remarks to all concerned also stick to the
> subject, we are not discussing rubber stamp QSO'S. Have you heard a QSO
> taking place with each station using single Letter Callsigns ? then the
> guessing game via emails Who was that sending an X , W or a P
> Any fool can transmit a machine generated bandslip Beacon but a two way hand
> send morse QSO requires SKILL
> Beacons used on a narrow band like LF are but unattended QRM generators
> interfering with those trying to engage in two way communications.
> I cannot say that I have heard you on LF or MF so curious why you are so
> interested in what is going on ????
>
>   g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "g4gvw"<g4gvw@aol.com>
> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:54 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
>
>
>> Mal,
>>
>> For many of us who, while licensed radio amateurs, are mainly interested
>> in the behaviour of the spectrum and the medium via which signals are
>> propagated, beacons at UHF, VHF, HF, MF, LF et. al. have for many years
>> been a perfectly acceptable and legitimate resource. We don't need to
>> dictate an ID protocol to those generous of their time who provide them.
>> All we need to know (ideally in advance) is how to identify the resource
>> and its location together with a few technical details. At that point
>> most of us are possessed of enough innate and inherent wit to engage our
>> grey matter and draw such conclusions as may be appropriate. These
>> skills are often of more import than the need to achieve a highly
>> regulated and often "rubber-stamped" exchange whose main aim seems to
>> require that some variety of "points-table" is constantly updated with
>> an increasing number!
>>
>> I wish for Christmas SANITY - and Please May It extend THROUGHOUT 2011
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 18:10 +0000, mal hamilton wrote:
>>> We do not need Beacons on LF this is the problem also why do Appliance
>>> Operators on LF need to deviate from the procedures used on all the
> other
>>> amateur bands, who ever heard of single letter Beacons on HF, in fact
> Beacon
>>> operators on HF need special permission.
>>> Radio Operators on the other hand in QSO mode on any band do not have
> this
>>> problem
>>> g3kev
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Graham"<g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
>>> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 5:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
>>>
>>>
>>>> I Suggested a  timed  beacon system, a long time ago   , similar to
> the
>>>> g3plx  5 meg  monitoring  system , where  stations simply took an
>>> available
>>>> time slot and transmitted a  long  pulse ... monitoring  software
> then
>>>> simply  looked in the  slots and gave a  real  time s/n  reading ,
> also
>>>> enabled  stations  could  be  in rx  mode during there  'off' period
> ....
>>>> Then  wspr  appeared .......game over ..or is it  ...
>>>>
>>>> So what about a  timed  beacon system that  uses  allocated time slots
> and
>>>> the  monitoring system  keeps track  or who is using  which slot  ..
>>>> what a  strange idea .. but  for  LF  may have  big advantages
>>>>
>>>> All  on the same  frequency -so  no  problem  with  Ae Q / B/W leaving
>>> the
>>>> band open  for other modes
>>>> NO   need  for  silly  long  tx periods , melting  station accessories
>>>> ONLY   needs rudimental  time  lock
>>>>
>>>> OH and one  little  oversight .. all  you  need  is a  -CW-
> transmitter ,
>>>> no  frequency shift keying , no  audio  to  rf  translation ,
>>>>
>>>> Down side . needs  some one to  write the  control  software
> ........in
>>> fact
>>>> Andy , ran the  basic idea  on 500  for quite a  while , using  -one-
> of
>>>> the  three  time slots  of the  g3plx system, with Gary providing a
>>> off-air
>>>> on line  monitor  200  miles  north
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "Chris"<c.ashby435@btinternet.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:20 AM
>>>> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>>> Subject: LF: Re: RE: Full ID
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rik,
>>>>> The idea is fine. But, the problems I have with this are (1)
> Stations
>>>>> don't always notify us who they are and what they are up to (Mike,
>>> G3XDV,
>>>>> is a perfect example of how it should be done, keeping us FULLY
>>> informed),
>>>>> and (2) is where I agree with Stefan, what about listeners (lookers)
> who
>>>>> are not on this refelector? Two letters are of little use to them. I
>>> know
>>>>> two stations near me who look on 137 but are not on here - for
> various
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>> You just can't beat a full callsign, even if you do sometimes only
> get
>>>>> snatches of it. As it is, stations are often 'identified' by
> frequency
>>>>> with very dubious visual evidence!
>>>>> Chris, G4AYT.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Rik Strobbe"<Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
>>>>> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:04 AM
>>>>> Subject: LF: RE: Full ID
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Mike, all,
>>>>>
>>>>> for propagation test purposes (sound much better than beaconing) all
> we
>>>>> need is an unambiguous identification. A single character will lead
> to
>>>>> confusion, but 2 characters should do the job.
>>>>> So what about using the 2 last characters of the callsign ?
>>>>> That would make most ID's more or less of the same length.
>>>>> G3XDV would use "DV", OR7T would use "7T", DF6NM would use "NM" and
> so
>>> on.
>>>>> I cannot see any conflicts right now (= 2 stations active in
> propagation
>>>>> tests with identical 2 last characters).
>>>>> Is national law requires a full id it can always be send in 12WMP
> CW.
>>>>> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>>> [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Mike Dennison
>>>>> [mike.dennison@ntlworld.com]
>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 2010 17:52
>>>>> Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>>> Onderwerp: LF: Full ID
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, it seems that most people want full suffixes to be sent. I
>>>>> believe I had good reasons to use a short ID, but I am happy to go
>>>>> along with the majority view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the final straw was Mal threatening not to talk to me!
>>>>>
>>>>> Beacon tonight (in addition to, and not instead of, real QSOs) will
>>>>> be on 136.177kHz, 'XDV' synchronised with the start of each hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 de Mike
>>>>> ========
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
>>   qth nr felixstowe uk
>> (east coast, county of suffolk)
>>
>>
>
>