Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 8A6FE3800008F; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 21:08:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TqaDP-0005Is-JT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 02:07:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TqaDO-0005Ij-Vh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 02:07:26 +0000 Received: from nina.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TqaDE-0001Lx-T4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 02:07:25 +0000 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by nina.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r0326r2f029584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 22:36:53 -0330 Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 22:36:53 -0330 (NST) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <48BBF8CC892E4164B0E96E856BB44972@gnat> Message-ID: References: <0A4D88A68FCB4F22A2BC40825788A6AA@AGB> <1357150913.48886.YahooMailNeo@web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <63C5AFAA6F8C41A7936F2069D38FAC01@AGB> <81FED2F455C94E45B3BE41353A6D53BC@W1KW> <52B2628757094925BA8206A2C0D9640B@AGB> <1357173044.69099.YahooMailNeo@web133203.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <48BBF8CC892E4164B0E96E856BB44972@gnat> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MUN-Disclaimer: http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/elect_communications_disclaimer_2012.php X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Alan, Group, Memories of QRM from SSB are still fresh in my mind. You certainly don't need any endorsement from me, but I think your views are well stated and should be heeded. 73 Joe VO1NA [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: c95b9a52470b89d54f2ef38e923e05cb Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1da60950e4e82b2b7c X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Alan, Group, Memories of QRM from SSB are still fresh in my mind. You certainly don't need any endorsement from me, but I think your views are well stated and should be heeded. 73 Joe VO1NA On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Alan Melia wrote: > Just a thought.....when it gets totally washed out with SSB all 24 hours how are you going to clean it out? People in general dont follow gentlemen's agreements they were not party too.....and "it doesnt say I cant in the licence". > > I fear that, though what you suggest would work, it might encourage mayhem. I would prefer to see those who feel uncomfortable using a morse key on other bands, improve their skill on 475 by not being under HF-band like pressure. I dont listen there now but 10MHz used to be a guide for what you can expect wher SSB is not actually banned from a narrow band. Dont forget, to SSB-only ops CW is just interference. The plus point is they will have to make a transverter first, but then a few badly aligned tranverters on SSB could be a disaster. I think the Swedish station was was Gus SM?BHZ, and the SSB wiped out several DX CW qsos I knew of at the time. It was a commercial licence not an amateur one, so voice ID may have been in the conditions. > > Alan > G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: M0FMT > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:30 AM > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > Hi Graham Geri and all > > Warren has seen SSB first hand on the MF QRG and we have this side also.There was an SM station (call sign forgotten?) in the early days of 500 that added an SSB anouncement on his beacon and it worked well. > > To my spec. :- "One SSB channel at the high edge of the band only used during daylight hours no DXing!" add " Use VOX, no monologuing allowed" to be a laissez faire operation no band plan, but fair play!.73 es GL es HNY Pete M0FMT IO91UX > > From: Graham > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2013, 20:48 > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > > Geri > > 800 Hz B/W ... May be this is something 'Wolf' can code for you ? a b/w compression / expansion module in SL , to limit the tx b/w to 800 Hz must be possible to divide by 3 and mult by 3 with a linear shift as well ? > > G.. > > > From: Holger 'Geri', DK8KW - DI2BO - W1KW > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:36 PM > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > Hi, > > I kind of like the idea of an SSB channel. I just pulled out the conditions of my first secial license for 160m from 1973 or 1974. That said 1815 to 1835 kHz with 10 Watts in CW, additionally one SSB channel for 1832 to 1835 kHz, so why not trying this on 630m, too? Here in Germany we are currently limited to 800 Hz bandwidt but I am sure we can sork towards a special license under certain conditions such as daylight operation only .. sounds good to me! > > Vy 73 > > Geri, DK8KW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Graham > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:58 PM > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > Hi Pete > > Its quite obvious that the allocation is quite able to support normal armature activity , and why not ? its no longer a experimental allocation , its just the same as 10 or top band , un expected results today though ! ssb sounds odd , may be as the path is stable , sstv ? must be a narrow mode , and the 'new' digital voice is 2KHz , but that requires a linear Tx path > > As for the band edge > > I'm straining to find a engineering reason , that wspr and qrss has decided to run mid band ? Im sure users had a reasonable discussion at the introduction of the band , to place the modes at the edges , with live cw a the lower portion ? its well know that these long carrier modes cause disruption to other band users and are well placed at the band edges , 'vanity beacons' is a term I have seen noted in referral, as occupancy increases , by users not linked or even aware of discussions taking place on these groups , i'm sure there will be problems leading to the introduction of band plan's , for some the plans form part of the licence conditions .. > > Is Opera a vanity system ? , actually no, it compliments ros- data mode in that the ave s/n readings can be used to determine if a path will support the data mode , each having the same averaging s/n reading taken along the time line , > > 73 -G.. > > > > > > > > > > From: M0FMT > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:21 PM > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > Hi all > > One SSB channel at the high edge of the band only used during daylight hours no DXing! > > > 73 es GL es HNY Pete M0FMT IO91UX > > From: Graham > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2013, 16:13 > Subject: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? > > > > Quite intriguing propagation on this 'new' band > > From some unexpected early 600 mile + Opera decodes last night , to several wspr TA decodes , [G8's again ..] to today's test with Gary using USB-SSB voice , > > Where as at 1300z we had 5/9 signals each way as expected over 25 miles , GI3PDN Ray , called on CW , to give a report of 5/9 across the Irish Sea , some 100 miles for our two signals , his CW also in the 5/9/9 region, one wonders how far inland the signals travelled ? > > After a short 3 way qso, we closed the test round 1330z , may not of been quite as sociable after dark , but with a small Ae , 40 x 70 ft iv L and 35 ft Top load vert , 50 watts pep , results defiantly superior to say 160 mtrs using the same Ae's > > 73 -G > G0NBD > > > > > > > > > This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php