Return-Path: Received: from rly-db06.mx.aol.com (rly-db06.mail.aol.com [172.19.130.81]) by air-db05.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINDB053-ad14b21dbea244; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:43:31 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-db06.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDB067-ad14b21dbea244; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:43:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NIsEm-0003th-NW for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:15:56 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NIsE4-0003tY-7S for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:15:12 +0000 Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NIsE2-0003v9-RF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:15:12 +0000 Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBANEtIr013189 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:14:55 -0500 Received: from MarkusVester@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id l.d12.340438cf (37659) for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (e179164100.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.164.100]) by cia-mb07.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB071-931b4b2180e636; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:14:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Markus Vester" To: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:14:34 +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: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006E_01CA79F6.EB4035D0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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_006E_01CA79F6.EB4035D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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_006E_01CA79F6.EB4035D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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_006E_01CA79F6.EB4035D0--