Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19990615082027.2f0f352c@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:20:27
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Frequency separation: Normal CW operation
In-reply-to: <37655BC8.78B9856@cableol.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

At 20:45 14/06/99 +0100, GW4ALG wrote:
>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?

At 22:17 14/06/99 +0100, G4JNT wrote:
>
>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.

Maybe here in Belgium I am a bit out of the activity 'epicentrum' (= UK),
but so far I cannot remember to have heard more than 4 or 5 stations
tranmitting at the same time, so I think most of the time there is no
reason to go closer than 300Hz to another station. It is not because 1
operator has an excellent (non ringing !) narrow filter that all the others
have it.
So my advice : if possible keep 300Hz (or more) away from other stations.
If the other station is in QSO (especially with a 'weak' QSO-partner) than
even more care should be taken not to 'torpedo' the QSO.

73, Rik