Message-ID: <3715.200103081328@gemini>
From: "James Moritz" <j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Hertfordshire
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:32:52 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: LF: <TECH>Re: Transcontinental modes - what next?
In-reply-to: <00b301c0a740$f67ff3a0$42b21bca@xtr743187>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Dear Bob, LF group

> Jim,
> 
> Your statement
> 
> > All this means that the spectrum available for 
> > a group of transmitting stations participating in "transatlantic tests"
> > is probably only 100Hz. 
> 
> assumes that the EU band plan can not adapt to demand.
> 
> 73, Bob ZL2CA

Some aspects of band use are not within the power of amateurs to 
do much adapting to - for example CFH and SXV can transmit 
where and when they like in the band, as can the intermods that 
plague some parts of Europe.

The other thing is that the long distance/exotic modes activity is a 
minority interest among LF amateurs - it is not really reasonable to 
fill a large portion of the available band with signals that most of the 
band users cannot make use of. There has already been more than 
enough debate as to whether this is good or bad, but there it is.

So I think operating in small bandwidths is an inevitable part of the 
challenge of LF; it has certainly proved useful with the current crop 
of QRSS type modes, where virtually all the beacon activity has 
fitted easily into a bandwidth as wide as a single CW signal. 

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU