Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <cuAJxuAF0wh3Ewt0@pagnell.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:06:13 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "John W Gould" <John@pagnell.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Bandplanning: QRS frequencies ....
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Some of you will remember that there was a discussion about the best
choice of frequencies for slow-CW at last October's LF Forum (at the
RSGB Internations HF & IOTA Convention).   Since then RSGB and DARC have
put forward the main outcomes which our friend Peter Bobek summarised
earlier this year on this reflector: "During the RSGB-HF-Convention
(fall 1998) we set up the following recommendation (using the
frequencies listed below): 136,458 (+/- 3 Hz), the LORAN-free window is
only 6 Hz wide. 137,600-137,800 (most of the activity is between 137,650
- 137,750 kHz)"

The RSGB HF Committee is due to meet next Saturday.  That committee
inter alia looks after 136kHz matters. I would like to know whether
there is still general agreement that this is the appropriate "bandplan"
to put forward, at national society level, at the Region 1 IARU
Conference which meets soon.  I have the feeling that no-one has really
taken up the "LORAN-free window" and that normal CW tends to occur in
that part of the band.  However, maybe we should try and reserve it for
operation into Northern Europe where LORAN is likely to be a continuing
problem.  

You may also prefer that we adopt the narrower the high-frequency
allocation, that is 137.65kHz to 137.75kHz.

Comments please, preferbly direct, to 

g3wkl@pagnell.demon.co.uk

unless debate is seen necessary, in which case use the reflector.

73

John
-- 
John Gould, G3WKL
G3WKL @GB7BEN.#43.GBR.EU
g3wkl@pagnell.demon.co.uk