Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mk05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 18EAD3800008B; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TrUiC-0004gZ-FE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:27:00 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TrUiB-0004gQ-LR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:26:59 +0000 Received: from mout3.freenet.de ([195.4.92.93]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TrUi9-0004gV-U5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:26:58 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.142] (helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TrUhp-0002Qp-4k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:26:37 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:42283 helo=mjail2.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TrUho-0007nK-QH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:26:36 +0100 Received: from [195.4.92.19] (port=38451 helo=9.mx.freenet.de) by mjail2.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TrUfE-0005Wq-0i for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:23:56 +0100 Received: from blfd-4db0312f.pool.mediaways.net ([77.176.49.47]:4314 helo=[192.168.178.22]) by 9.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.76 #1) id 1TrUfD-0003uX-NC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:23:55 +0100 Message-ID: <50E8377A.6000404@freenet.de> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:23:54 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C> In-Reply-To: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Chris, IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions at the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section without strong NDBs. Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of the band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the band, where the risk of deafening the receiver in the neighbourhood is as low as possible. Problem with this for TA enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" is used on both sides of the atlantic, one would have to agree on time slotted transmissions but it's questionable if everyone would stick to the scheme (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter). [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.93 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 2ee80849a5d572dbc974bb207a527753 Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070603060801020100090203" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d618950e83883179f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070603060801020100090203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Chris, IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions at the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section without strong NDBs. Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of the band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the band, where the risk of deafening the receiver in the neighbourhood is as low as possible. Problem with this for TA enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" is used on both sides of the atlantic, one would have to agree on time slotted transmissions but it's questionable if everyone would stick to the scheme (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter). 73, Wolf DL4YHF . Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris: > Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? > There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this. I > would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers would be > better suited to near the band edges. > Three German operators suggested a band plan during late September, in > which QRSS was near the bottom of the band. As far as I remember this > plan was met with some hostility. > It has been suggested that people will not stick to a band plan. I > find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of QRSS, if they > want their signals to be found. > Another problem I would suggest, is just how many know how to > measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed several contributors to > this reflector refer to ERP. > Food for thought? > Vy 73, > Chris, G4AYT. --------------070603060801020100090203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Chris,

IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions at the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section without strong NDBs.
Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of the band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the band, where the risk of deafening the receiver in the neighbourhood is as low as possible. Problem with this for TA enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" is used on both sides of the atlantic, one would have to agree on time slotted transmissions but it's questionable if everyone would stick to the scheme (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter).

73,
  Wolf DL4YHF .


Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this. I would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers would be better suited to near the band edges.
Three German operators suggested a band plan during late September, in which QRSS was near the bottom of the band. As far as I remember this plan was met with some hostility.
It has been suggested that people will not stick to a band plan. I find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of QRSS, if they want their signals to be found.
Another problem I would suggest, is just how many know how to measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed several contributors to this reflector refer to ERP.
Food for thought?
Vy 73,
Chris, G4AYT.

--------------070603060801020100090203--