X-GM-THRID: 1243069579461018781 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.87.11 with SMTP id k11cs17052wxb; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.116.15 with SMTP id o15mr2330477buc.1185529727453; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 6si11163861nfv.2007.07.27.02.48.43; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:48:47 -0700 (PDT) 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) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1IEMO1-0003Bn-Ky for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:45:29 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IEMO1-0003Be-2k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:45:29 +0100 Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IEMNz-0002o0-Sn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:45:28 +0100 Received: from G0MRF@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id l.c77.17254016 (29673); Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:45:08 -0400 (EDT) From: G0MRF@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:45:08 EDT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org CC: c.cjo@btinternet.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5014 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1185529508" 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=HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING, 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 464 -------------------------------1185529508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Chris / group. Thank you for the proposed band plan. Looks very sensible. I suspect that as 500kHz continues to evolve, use of the different modes will experience peaks and troughs in their popularity and some expansion or contraction of segments may occur to accommodate these changes. Of course there must always be the provision for a new station on the band who may be crystal controlled to transmit wherever they are able to. But hopefully, when the interest takes hold, that person will want to build a VFO of some sort and will then be able to follow the bandplan. Personally, I think the trend for transmitting beacons will quickly wear off. Equally I feel it would only take a couple of long distance QSOs using QRSS for that to become very popular albeit for a short time. Nevertheless some fairly consistent presence on the band does provide a signal to listen to and encourage people to join in. Perhaps a reduction in the 'beacon segment' and expansion of the QRSS segment may be beneficial. Looking to the future, if our access to the band is extended beyond 03/08, then it may be nice to have beacons better organised. It is nice to know when propagation is favourable but there is little point having lots of signals from the same general geographic location. I know these days locking a beacon to a time signal (MSF or GPS) is fairly straightforward and perhaps a small network on a single frequency could be a long term objective. For example. 4 stations on 1 frequency but located in the 4 corners of the UK.. It would be very efficient on spectrum and have less potential for desensing locally. Perhaps all this could be discussed at the HF convention where I'm sure there will be a couple of lectures on 500k. Once again, thanks for the bandplan initiative 73 David In a message dated 26/07/2007 20:56:02 GMT Standard Time, 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 in' on weaker stations. Is there a case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled transmission ? 73 G3XIZ SK -------------------------------1185529508 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Chris / group.
 
Thank you for the proposed band plan. Looks very sensible.
 
I suspect that as 500kHz continues to evolve, use of the different mode= s=20 will experience peaks and troughs in their popularity and some expansion or=20 contraction of segments may occur to accommodate these changes.
 
Of course there must always be the provision for a new station on the b= and=20 who may be crystal controlled to transmit wherever they are able to. But=20 hopefully, when the interest takes hold, that person will want to build a VF= O of=20 some sort and will then be able to follow the bandplan.
 
Personally, I think the trend for transmitting beacons will quickly wea= r=20 off. Equally I feel it would only take a couple of long distance QSOs u= sing=20 QRSS for that to become very popular albeit for a short time. Nevertheless s= ome=20 fairly consistent presence on the band does provide a signal=20 to listen to and encourage people to join in. Perhaps a reduction=20= in=20 the 'beacon segment' and expansion of the QRSS segment may be beneficial.
 
Looking to the future, if our access to the band is extended beyond 03/= 08,=20 then it may be nice to have beacons better organised.  It is nice to kn= ow=20 when propagation is favourable but there is little point having lots of sign= als=20 from the same general geographic location. I know these days locking a beaco= n to=20 a time signal (MSF or GPS) is fairly straightforward and perhaps a small net= work=20 on a single frequency could be a long term objective. For example.  4=20 stations on 1 frequency but  located in the 4 corners of the UK.. It wo= uld=20 be very efficient on spectrum and have less potential for desensing=20 locally.
 
Perhaps all this could be discussed at the HF convention where I'm sure= =20 there will be a couple of lectures on 500k.
 
Once again, thanks for the bandplan initiative
 
73
 
David
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 26/07/2007 20:56:02 GMT Standard Time,=20 c.cjo@btinternet.com writes:
CT
DISCUSSION POINTS

Obviously an ideal band plan would= =20 benefit as many stations as possible to the inconvenience of as few as=20 possible.

There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes and=20 beacons from the 'straight' cw segment of the band.

There may be a=20= case=20 for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times of likely high cw activ= ity=20 (weekends).

QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan=20 locations.

As most of the stations are congregated in the SE corner= of=20 the UK, local QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated from QS= O's=20 with more distant stations.

It would be useful to have a QRP callin= g=20 frequency to facilitate 'homing in' on weaker stations.

Is there=20 a  case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled=20 transmission ?

73 G3XIZ SK
 
 -------------------------------1185529508--