X-GM-THRID: 1237524050121427842 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.78.172.1 with SMTP id u1cs454668hue; Sat, 26 May 2007 08:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.89.5 with SMTP id r5mr3782628ugl.1180194902901; Sat, 26 May 2007 08:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 34si3741394uga.2007.05.26.08.54.56; Sat, 26 May 2007 08:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1HryWq-00062t-IG for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 16:50:04 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1HryWp-00062k-Rs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 16:50:03 +0100 Received: from smtpout0155.sc1.he.tucows.com ([64.97.136.155] helo=n082.sc1.he.tucows.com) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HryWo-0007SN-L7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 16:50:03 +0100 Received: from g3kev (62.252.208.130) by n082.sc1.he.tucows.com (7.2.069.1) id 4630CFCB002523B0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 15:49:55 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c79fad$80dec470$82d0fc3e@g3kev> From: "hamilton mal" To: References: <999493.49098.qm@web86404.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 15:49:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Re: QRSS on 500 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C79FAD.6A97CB80" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C79FAD.6A97CB80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Chris and Co I would say that the QRS mode is useful under certain adverse conditions = but even that is debateable because of the very slow speed of data = transfer which leaves it vunerable to garble caused by bursts of noise, = static and the proverbial QSB which seems to be more prone on 500 khz = probably because of the permitted max power being so low. This = observation has been made by others on the band besides myself.=20 On normal CW working which allows a quick exchange of information this = is not a problem also one can use QSK to advantage which is not an = option on QRS mode.=20 All the current stations active on 500 both in the UK and EU are audible = with me so why would I want to work them on QRS when I could exchange = the relevant information in a few secs/mins and even have a discussion = when this would take an hour plus on qrs plus the disadvantages as = discussed above. Why would anyone crawl when they can WALK.=20 >From info published from the USA, those using the 500 khz band prefer = normal CW. This LMCW mode is not used on any other amateur band, so why = 500. Beacon use also needs a mention. A more useful and considerate approach = would be to beacon at around 6 wpm with call and say locator any other = info is not normally necessary, again the slow qrs mode is not = appropriate and sometimes in the evening there is more of this activity = than QSO'S taking place, so what is the point of these endless = transmissions. I do not see this reflector swamped with reports and the = odd one just confirms what happened the day before from the same source. = My suggestion, if one is compelled to beacon, use normal 6 wpm cw and = listen at a specified time for a possible QSO ie on the half hour or = hour, or any other suitable time=20 The 500 khz band has always been designated primarily for Telegraphy. To date as far as I know all QSO'S that have taken place have been on = normal CW and you have a good strong signal always 589 with me and I am = sure you are equally strong with all the others on the band. I do not = suppose with your signal and your ability to send good CW you would = acticipate using LMCW. 73 and gl=20 de Mal/G3KEV =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: CHRISTOPHER OSBORN=20 To: LF group=20 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:03 PM Subject: LF: QRSS on 500 kHz It appears that the use of QRSS modes on 500 kHz is unfortunately = somewhat contraversial. Admittedly this band has a particular historical heritage and it would = be a shame were traditional CW to become a minority mode. I prefer manual CW to any other mode but QRSS has its place too. My N.O.V. entitles me to use CW, QRSS and DFCW on 500 kHz. As far as I am aware there is at present no 'gentleman's agreement' = for band segmentation regarding the various modes. Maybe after nearly 3 months into the year's trial it might be = opportune to consider one. The usefulness of QRSS is obvious but appears to need restating: a) Those amateurs who are not fortunate enough to generate a strong = (or even decent) signal may still work other, even DX stations. b) QRSS QSO's may be time-shared with other activities e.g. = construction or metal work. c) It generates a bigger 'presence' on the band - useful for any = interested parties who may be testing an RX, aerial system or = investigating propagation. d) It allows the involvement of some of our more distant non-G friends = who may be interested in the band yet have no transmit entitlement. e) The bandwidth of QRSS is very narrow and hence spectrum efficient. Have there been any UK 2-way QRSS QSO's on 500 kHz ? Is there any interest in having QSO's in this mode? I anticipate reducing my transmit power by say 40 dB and calling CQ = late at night in QRSS. At this low level it should cause no interference = to any CW activity. If there are no serious objections then I shall suggest a frequency = and time at a later date. 73 Chris G3XIZ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, = sign up for your free account today. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C79FAD.6A97CB80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Chris and Co
 
I would say that the QRS mode is = useful under=20 certain adverse conditions but even that is debateable because of = the very=20 slow speed of data transfer which leaves it vunerable to = garble caused=20 by bursts of noise, static and the proverbial QSB which = seems to=20 be more prone on 500 khz  probably because of = the permitted=20 max power being so low. This observation has been made by others on = the=20 band besides myself.
On normal CW working which allows a = quick exchange=20 of information this is not a problem also one can use QSK to advantage = which is=20 not an option on QRS mode.
All the current stations active on 500 = both in the=20 UK and EU are audible with me so why would I want to work them on QRS = when I=20 could exchange the relevant information in a few secs/mins and even have = a=20 discussion when this would take an hour plus on qrs plus the = disadvantages as=20 discussed above.
Why would anyone crawl when they can = WALK.=20
From info published from the USA, those = using the=20 500 khz band prefer normal CW. This LMCW mode is not used on any other = amateur=20 band, so why 500.
Beacon use also needs a = mention. A more=20 useful and considerate approach would be to beacon at around 6 = wpm=20 with call and say locator any other info is not = normally necessary,=20 again the slow qrs mode is not appropriate and sometimes in the = evening=20 there is more of this activity than QSO'S taking place, so what is = the=20 point of these endless transmissions. I do not see this=20 reflector swamped with reports and the odd one just confirms = what=20 happened the day before from the same source. 
My suggestion, if one is compelled to = beacon, use=20 normal 6 wpm cw and listen at a specified time for a possible = QSO ie on the=20 half hour or hour, or any other suitable time 
The 500 khz band has always=20 been designated primarily for Telegraphy.
To date as far as I know all QSO'S that = have taken=20 place have been on normal CW and you have a good strong signal = always=20 589 with me and I am sure you are equally strong with all the = others on the=20 band. I do not suppose with your signal and your ability to send=20 good CW you would acticipate using LMCW.
 
73 and gl 
de Mal/G3KEV
    
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 CHRISTOPHER=20 OSBORN
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 = 11:03 PM
Subject: LF: QRSS on 500 = kHz

It appears that the use of QRSS modes on 500 kHz is=20 unfortunately somewhat contraversial.

Admittedly this band has = a=20 particular historical heritage and it would be a shame were = traditional CW to=20 become a minority mode.

I prefer manual CW to any other mode = but QRSS=20 has its place too.
My N.O.V. entitles me to use CW, QRSS and DFCW = on 500=20 kHz.
As far as I am aware there is at present no 'gentleman's = agreement'=20 for band segmentation regarding the various modes.
Maybe after = nearly 3=20 months into the year's trial it might be opportune to consider = one.

The=20 usefulness of QRSS is obvious but appears to need restating:

a) = Those=20 amateurs who are not fortunate enough to generate a strong (or even = decent)=20 signal may still work other, even DX stations.
b) QRSS QSO's may be = time-shared with other activities e.g. construction or metal = work.
c) It=20 generates a bigger 'presence' on the band - useful for any interested = parties=20 who may be testing an RX, aerial system or investigating = propagation.
d) It=20 allows the involvement of some of our more distant non-G friends who = may be=20 interested in the band yet have no transmit entitlement.
e) The = bandwidth=20 of QRSS is very narrow and hence spectrum efficient.

Have there = been=20 any UK 2-way QRSS QSO's on 500 kHz ?
Is there any interest in = having QSO's=20 in this mode?

I anticipate reducing my transmit power by say 40 = dB and=20 calling CQ late at night in QRSS. At this low level it should cause no = interference to any CW activity.
If there are no serious objections = then I=20 shall suggest a frequency and time at a later date.

73 Chris = G3XIZ

Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign=20 up for your free account today. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C79FAD.6A97CB80--