Message-ID: <004f01becae6$df761820$0600a8c0@prstesv1.prestel.co.uk>
From: "Dave" <dave@picks.force9.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Re: Bandplanning: QRS frequencies ....
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 16:14:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

John, Geri et al

I agree with most of the ideas expressed about a band plan for 136 with the
following comments on Geri's bandplan.

I like the 135.7 - 136 for beacons and tests, it is under used any noisy
down there!

Perhaps the normal CW bit should extend from 136 to about 137.3 as the
pressure of activity sometimes means you need a bit more space... plus the
fact that around 137 is the clearest part of the band in some areas.

Can we can lump PSK31 and "future developments" together into 137.3 - 137.6
for the present. I think I'm the only station on 136 to have had more than
one QSO using it!

Slow CW at the top of the band seems to be the accepted norm and there is
space between the Loran lines there too. The magic figure of 136.458 was
only suggested as it was the biggest gap. Once you have Spectrogram up and
running you can see the lines and slide between them.

Please let's not be heavy handed about the implementation of any band plan
that is decided. We must remember that experimenters may only have one
crystal in the junk box to start with and telling them they're in "the wrong
part of the band" is not going to fill them with enthusiasm!

73 Dave G3YXM.