Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <44844CE9.6000602@w1tag.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:25:29 -0400
From: John Andrews <w1tag@w1tag.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <494.2048ad9.31b5a042@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <494.2048ad9.31b5a042@aol.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: QRSS on 136.318
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

David,

The bandplan was disturbed when a military station (NPG) on the west 
coast of the U.S. fired up in the 136.95 range. The signal was loud 
enough in the eastern U.S. to affect the QRSS reception from EU stations 
around 136.922 kHz. With CFH intermittently operating on 137.0 kHz 
(clobbering +/- 400 kHz or more for many of us), and a number of eastern 
U.S. experimental stations at the top end, the suggestion was made that 
the EU QRSS operation move up above 136. At the time, I suggested 
136.318, as it offered a decent Loran line window over much of the U.S. 
and Canada.

I'm not sure of the status of the NPG operation at this point. If it has 
finally gone off the air, then the original 136.922 region would again 
be available.

John Andrews, W1TAG


G0MRF@aol.com wrote:
> Isn't QRSS  137+   or 135.7 ish on the bandplan? 
>  
> Not that there's much CW activity these days, but I would have thought 
> the remote receivers are all set up for other frequencies.
>  
> David
>  
>