Message-ID: <001601c08635$a92c1100$4c44883e@default>
From: "MAL HAMILTON" <MAL@g3kev.freeserve.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Please more normal CW activity on Saturday and Sunday morning
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:42:10 -0000
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>


-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: 24 January 2001 10:18
Subject: Re: LF: Please more normal CW activity on Saturday and Sunday
morning


>I have a bit of a problem with some recent mails. I agree that CW activity
>has decreased over the last months but I do not thing that QRSS is to blame
>for it.
>Apart from one case of unintentional QRM (where apologies were given and
>accepted)

How could an experienced amateur unintentionally be on the wrong frequency?
especially when it was busy at the time according to the person that
complained.

 there has been one weekend that many of us were looking for QRSS
>signals on 136.5kHz.
Why did you do it and cause qrm to others using normal cw especially that a
band plan has been agreed by all and this was not the only time that this
has happened.

 All QRSS transmitting actvities (in Europe) have
>either been below 136.0 or above 137.6kHz.
>For the last years I keep note of the stations and hear, about a year ago I
>had about 20 stations in CW and about 5 stations in QRSS over a weekend.
>Now I have about 10 stations in CW and still about 5 stations in QRSS.
>What I have also noticed is that the activity shifted from the UK toward
>the continent, there is a lot of activity from PA, DL and F now.
>
>One of the most facinating aspects of amateur radio is 'breaking frontiers'
>and that is excatly what the QRSS transatlantic tests are all about.


There seems to be hysteria about the transatlantic to the detriment of all
other activities


 But as
>every new mode QRSS has to overcome some opposition. When reading the
>'letters from readers' in old ham magazines you will find the same
>reactions in the AM versus SSB controverse in the early sixties or the AM
>versus FM controverse on 2 meter a decade later.

This is partly true but with only 2 khz bandwidth available on 136 we do not
want a minority on computer generated slow cw or psk modes swamping the
majority trying to make a qso on normal cw. Beacons and slow cw are a
nuisence especally when using high power and going on for HOURS. A NORMAL cw
qso takes a few minutes and is a sociable mode for the narrow bandwidth.

>I would regret it if we would stop the QRSS transatlantic tests now

The majority would disagree with you.

 and
>seriously doubt that this would increase the CW activity.

You are partly right because some that are active on slow cw and psk cannot
send or copy normal cw.

>I see no reason why QRSS and CW can not co-exist.
>
>73, Rik  ON7YD
>
>