Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <PzXgCyAiFRqGFwAZ@g3xaq.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:25:54 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: Alan Ibbetson <alan@g3xaq.demon.co.uk>
References: <459233.19978.qm@web86407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <459233.19978.qm@web86407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.04-S (<LyrEZZUuE90FLa1szkUXKvGk1k>)
Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Yes, this works for me. Thanks for taking the initiative. 73, Alan.

In message <459233.19978.qm@web86407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, CHRISTOPHER=20
OSBORN <c.cjo@btinternet.com> writes
>CT
>DISCUSSION POINTS
>
>Obviously an ideal band plan would benefit as many stations as possible
>to the inconvenience of as few as possible.
>
>There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes and beacons
>from the 'straight' cw segment of the band.
>
>There may be a case for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times
>of likely high cw activity (weekends).
>
>QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan locations.
>
>As most of the stations are congregated in the SE corner of the UK, local
>QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated from QSO's with
>more distant stations.
>
>It would be useful to have a QRP calling frequency to facilitate 'homing i=
n'
>on weaker stations.
>
>Is there a=A0 case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled
>transmission ?
>
>73 G3XIZ SK
>
> Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign u=
p for
>your free account today.
>
>[ A MIME application / vnd.ms-excel part was included here. ]
>

--=20

Cheers,

Alan G3XAQ
alan@g3xaq.demon.co.uk