Message-ID: <CB4E7F0036F344FBAA90545D53E34E4A@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <47C531A902A946C9BE2EEC5C6B7E2EF3@presario1> <B4B0E46364344221863F9B6A7249A44E@JimPC> <1775028CB7C146B496121BA36FB7093D@AGB> <7D5B0AF5BD6C467F8719EB684EB8D7D5@JimPC>
In-Reply-To: <7D5B0AF5BD6C467F8719EB684EB8D7D5@JimPC>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:42:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: Re: US 500-kHz band plan
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Jim,

Emails  have  crossed in the system hi.

I note the reply , re USA  operating frequency's

The large gap in frequency made itself  apparent at the  time of my  first 
post , but with the  availability of  digital receivers, with the  ability 
to  capture quite  large spectrums, as can be  observed on for  example 
Gary's  grabber  page   http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html
perhaps the gap is not as problematic as might be of been in the past ?

A more conventional solution may be to  channel scan with the  rx , assuming 
the  rx may be  controlled by the pc ... how much of the wspr  signal do 
you  'actually need' to  decode, what happens if you  chop it.. room for 
experiment ?

G .




--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: US 500-kHz band plan

>
> Sorry, pressed "send" too soon by accident!
>
> Dear Graham, LF Group,
>
>> As the  European allocation looks to  be  wider than the  Uk, are we
>> expecting the  UK 3 Khz  allocation to  remain as is, if  and when the
>> band is formalised ?, in which case loosing 200 hz may not be the  most
>> sensible option ...
>
> As I understand it, there are not yet any formal Europe-wide proposals, 
> just
> what individual regulators have allocated on a case-by-case basis. I think
> G, EI, and ON have all allocated 501 - 504. The DL beacons and OK0EMW are
> licenced to use spot frequencies around 505kHz. Gus SM6BHZ would be able 
> to
> use 504.0 - 504.1kHz.
>
> But the main thing is whether we over here should transmit around 504kHz 
> as
> we are now, or shift to near 501kHz to share a common WSPR segment with 
> the
> US. On one hand, keeping to near 504k would have the advantage of no 
> strong
> signals in band for those trying to receive US stations. But on the other
> hand, it might mean we get QRMed by "general comms" US stations for those
> trying to receive us, and anyone wanting to receive both US and EU 
> stations
> would need two receivers/soundcards, etc.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: 
> 09/21/09 05:51:00
>