Return-Path: Received: from rly-mf02.mx.aol.com (rly-mf02.mail.aol.com [172.20.29.172]) by air-mf04.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINMF041-9484b2221821c7; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:40:18 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mf02.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMF026-9484b2221821c7; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:40:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ13f-0004Vz-EX for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:41:03 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ12z-0004Ve-Mj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:40:21 +0000 Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NJ12x-000627-BI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:40:21 +0000 Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBB8cUrj009693 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:38:30 -0500 Received: from MarkusVester@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id l.cad.5e1959e5 (43906) for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (e179164100.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.164.100]) by cia-dc07.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC073-ab824b2204fb2f8; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:38:20 -0500 Message-ID: <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:38:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: MarkusVester@aol.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01CA7A45.ABBAAB30" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CA7A45.ABBAAB30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 Sorry for the confusion. 73, Markus=20 From: Markus Vester=20 Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:14 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes Dear LF group, recently we find the "transatlantic waterhole" around 137.777 kHz quit= e 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 mod= es (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 gam= e with sensitive receivers and good signals. But I still think it woul= d be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much as= possible.=20 My suggestion would be to stick with the east-west versus west-east al= location of the two slots. Taking into account the path of mutual dark= ness, 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 cour= se 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 stil= l be very useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discour= age anyone from putting out a signal, and certainly reject the notion= of anything reminiscent of a "band police". I just think a little coo= rdination 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 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CA7A45.ABBAAB30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear LF,
 
the passage should have said:<= /DIV>
 
Taking into account the path of mutua= l darkness,=20 this would mean that all stations should transmit in the UPPER ba= nd during=20 their evenings until local midnight, and then QSY to the lower band fo= r the rest=20 of the night.
&= nbsp;
Sorry for the confusion.
 
73, Markus= =20

From: Markus Vester
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:14 AM
Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
=
Dear LF group,
 
recently we find the "transatlantic= waterhole"=20 around 137.777 kHz quite busy. Several Europeans have started beaconin= g within=20 this segment. And there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, wit= h wide=20 traces covering up possible transatlantic DX signalling=20 frequencies.
 
During the last years, we have a= ttempted=20 to split the frequency bands for both directions of transatl= antic=20 work. Traditional segments were around 137.777 kHz west-to-e= ast (for=20 Americans transmitting towards Eu), and around 136.320 kHz east-west= (for Eu to=20 stateside). Slow modes (QRSS= or DFCW, 60=20 second and longer) were used almost exclusively there, and severa= l stations=20 were able to successfully cross the pond in either direction.
 
The situation has become a little mor= e intricate=20 as more stations from other parts of the world (eg. Asia, China,= Japan) are=20 joining the game with sensitive receivers and good signals. But I stil= l think it=20 would be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much= as=20 possible.
 
My suggestion would be to stick= with the=20 east-west versus west-east allocation of the two slots. Taking in= to account=20 the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that all stations should= transmit=20 in the lower band during their evenings until local midnight, and then= QSY to=20 the lower band for the rest of the night. Receiver settings would=  of=20 course be vice versa.
 
I'm aware that this scheme canno= t be perfect=20 and universal. It won't cover North-South hauls, and would not=20 protect signals during early or late openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would st= ill be very=20 useful. Please don't get me wrong= - I do not want=20 to discourage anyone from putting out a signal, and certainly&nbs= p;reject=20 the notion of anything reminiscent of a "band police".= I just=20 think a little coordination may help all of us to be successful= on=20 this challenging and fascinating band.
 
Let me have your thoughts...
 
73 de Markus, DF6NM
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CA7A45.ABBAAB30--