Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:12:16 -0400
From: "Dave Sergeant" <sergeantd@compuserve.com>
Subject: LF: Bandplans
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Message-ID: <199907120112_MC2-7CA3-1A92@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

>From Dave G3YMC

Although I am in favour of keeping the top 100Hz or so of the band for slow
CW, as per current usage, I do not think we should have any other sort of
restrictive bandplanning.  With current usage it is just not necessary and
with the narrowness of the band flexibility is required at times of high
usage (eg Sunday mornings).

Although as has been pointed out some stations are crystal controlled (not
a problem with stations who like me use transverters), more significant is
antenna bandwidth.  Most of us have narrow bandwidth transmit antennas,
mine is about 200Hz wide. Until I get round to making a remote tuned
matching unit changing the antenna resonance is inconvenient.  This is why
I am often forced to work split frequency.

Bear in mind, for this reason, when testing antennas it is necessary to do
it on the frequency it resonates on and on which it will normally be used. 
There is some weak QRM on 136.0 but this is not strong enough to prevent
QSOs there.

I suggest therefore that we keep things largely as they are, with a
bandplan confirming the upper slow CW slot, but with the rest of the band
allocated to normal CW.  Other modes such as PSK31 (in very little use at
present) can share with normal CW, with a 'recommended centre of activity'.

ps.  As an aside, it would help when sending mail to the reflector, to
clearly identify who the mail is from, and give a return e-mail address for
direct replies.

73s Dave G3YMC
sergeantd@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sergeantd/