MIME-version: 1.0
Message-id: <991815BD8596474C8C29B80B3E0936E3@backup>
From: Vernon <vmath@eastlink.ca>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <BC520BF69FBC4F4B9B8E1C9B8AAB8A9B@White>
 <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White>
 <4B221D77.23434.434B0D@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
 <1260545211.2370.107.camel@gerhard-desktop>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:52:29 +0000
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed; reply-type=original
Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Gerhard please turn off your requested response feature in your email...

Many thanks...

Vernon
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerhard Hickl" <gerhard.hickl@aon.at>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes


> Hello folks!
> 
> I was one of the "bad boys" transmitting yesterday night in the
> "waterhole"...The purpose were some test with the antenna where I rely
> on grabbers.
> 
> But of course, I didn't choose my qrg by chance or to interfere with
> somebody else. No, rather the reasoning is what Mike writes in his post
> below.
> 
> Some of the grabbers even don't have a window around 700 but only show
> the "waterhole". I also know, that people who run grabbers can't be
> blamed for not offering this opportunity.
> 
> I'm not aware if offering such a 2nd window is a lot of work or if it is
> just "done by software". Anyways, I would appreciate such an
> alternative.
> 
> Cheers es 73
> 
> OE3GHB
> 
> Gerhard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am Freitag, den 11.12.2009, 10:22 +0000 schrieb Mike Dennison:
>> 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
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>