Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20007 invoked from network); 15 Jun 1999 16:08:26 +0100 Received: from mashie.force9.net (195.166.128.30) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 1999 16:08:26 +0100 Received: (qmail 20354 invoked from network); 14 Jun 1999 23:46:28 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by mashie.force9.net with SMTP; 14 Jun 1999 23:46:27 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10te66-00074x-00; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:16:50 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09404 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:17:20 GMT Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09400 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:17:16 GMT Received: from post.interalpha.co.uk ([195.26.224.18] helo=post.interalpha.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10te5q-00074u-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:16:34 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from sot-mod18.interalpha.net (sot-mod18.interalpha.net [195.26.225.18]) by post.interalpha.net (8.8.7/8.6.11) with SMTP id WAA05804; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: <199906142118.WAA05804@post.interalpha.net> X-Sender: drassew2@post.interalpha.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:17:00 +0100 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, actalbot@dera.gov.uk From: "Andy Talbot" Subject: LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > >I advised the operator that we tend to assume a receive IF bandwidth of >250 Hz and generally aim to maintain a 300 Hz separation from other >stations. (I believe that 300 Hz has been the figure quoted during LF >Group discussions and at the LF Forum.) I hope I did the right thing. > >But with the fancy new receivers now available (which I'll probably >never be able to afford!), does the Group still feel 300 Hz to be a >reasonable separation for normal CW operation? > Over 10% of the entire band just to allow guard bands!! What is wrong with some post Rx audio filtering - 50Hz BW is hardly difficult even with analogue filters. As I've now given up LF (it's become boring and 'just another operators band') others can make more valid comments. I notice in the call for papers for the July HF2000 conference in Guildford, there is section scheduled on amateur 73 / 137kHz activities. Does anyone on this reflector know who proposed this or is writing a paper. The conference organiser I spoke to did not know where it came from ! Andy G4JNT