From: <victor13@online.nl>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:47:54 +0100
Message-ID: <BDEMKFCNLMIILGIFNONNMELPDGAA.victor13@online.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57a24ca70912110724l43b18b68t5d2f18849fb14147@mail.gmail.com>
Importance: Normal
Subject: RE: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Warren,

I just wished I had that problem!!

73

Victor

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]Namens Warren Ziegler
Verzonden: vrijdag 11 december 2009 16:24
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes


Markus,

              My antenna tuning unit is outside 100 meters away from
the ham shack.
 I am unwilling to go out in the winter night to retune the antenna to
QSY to the lower frequency segment.

--
73 Warren K2ORS
                WD2XGJ
                WD2XSH/23
                WE2XEB/2
                WE2XGR/1


On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Markus Vester <markusvester@aol.com>=
 wrote:
> Dear LF,
>
> the passage should have said:
>
> Taking into account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean tha=
t all
> stations should transmit in the=A0UPPER 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 qu=
ite
> busy. Several Europeans have started beaconing within this segment.=
 And
> there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, with wide traces co=
vering
> up possible transatlantic DX signalling frequencies.
>
> During the last years, we have=A0attempted to=A0split the frequency=
 bands
> for=A0both directions of transatlantic work.=A0Traditional segments
were=A0around
> 137.777 kHz west-to-east (for Americans transmitting towards Eu), an=
d
around
> 136.320 kHz east-west (for Eu to stateside).=A0Slow modes (QRSS or=
 DFCW, 60
> second and longer)=A0were 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=A0more stations=
 from
other
> parts of the world (eg. Asia, China, Japan) are joining the game wit=
h
> 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=A0stick with the east-west=A0versus west-e=
ast
> 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=A0would=A0of cours=
e be vice
> versa.
>
> I'm aware that this=A0scheme cannot be perfect and universal. It won=
't cover
> North-South hauls, and would not protect=A0signals during early or=
 late
> openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would still be ve=
ry
> useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discourage anyo=
ne
from
> putting out a=A0signal, and certainly=A0reject the notion of=A0anyth=
ing
> reminiscent of=A0a=A0"band police". I just think a little coordinati=
on may
help
> all of us to=A0be successful on this=A0challenging and fascinating=
 band.
>
> Let me have your thoughts...
>
> 73 de Markus, DF6NM
>
> http://freenet-homepage.de/df6nm/Grabber.htm
>
>