X-GM-THRID: 1243069579461018781 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.87.11 with SMTP id k11cs23585wxb; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.116.15 with SMTP id o15mr2508091buc.1185538362239; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 5si3419249nfv.2007.07.27.05.12.37; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:12:42 -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 1IEOa7-0005EW-MQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:06:07 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IEOa6-0005EN-Uw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:06:07 +0100 Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.100.54]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <500kcs@uku.co.uk>) id 1IEOa5-0003bY-5U for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:06:06 +0100 X-Trace: 10501941-mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP X-SBRS: -3.0 X-RemoteIP: 80.225.120.115 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.0 c=0 a=32bHUPT6HIJXamh0aJ0A:9 a=JG5cRLTrdlpCsCR5ZmoA:7 a=WLKZHjKvq7r196M1DVLqLTlE4kEA:4 a=_-w_ocSsSsr26oDvMcsA:9 a=la8NwNGG0gkNIaBSOW0A:7 a=BTUQk2eLxpMYw43UwvwgqgTm9LoA:4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,588,1175468400"; d="scan'208,217";a="10501941" Received: from ppp-2-115.bris-b-1.access.uk.tiscali.com (HELO o) ([80.225.120.115]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 27 Jul 2007 13:06:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c7d046$7ee69fc0$7378e150@o> From: "Gw3UEP" <500kcs@uku.co.uk> To: References: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:02:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.079,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C7D04E.7522CD30" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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: 463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C7D04E.7522CD30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry chaps, This seems to escalating out of all proportion, yet more over-regulation = - KISS! Rog. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: G0MRF@aol.com=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Cc: c.cjo@btinternet.com=20 Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN Hello Chris / group. Thank you for the proposed band plan. Looks very sensible. I suspect that as 500kHz continues to evolve, use of the different modes = will experience peaks and troughs in their popularity and some expansion = or contraction of segments may occur to accommodate these changes. Of course there must always be the provision for a new station on the = band who may be crystal controlled to transmit wherever they are able = to. But hopefully, when the interest takes hold, that person will want = to build a VFO of some sort and will then be able to follow the = bandplan. Personally, I think the trend for transmitting beacons will quickly wear = off. Equally I feel it would only take a couple of long distance QSOs = using QRSS for that to become very popular albeit for a short time. = Nevertheless some fairly consistent presence on the band does provide a = signal to listen to and encourage people to join in. Perhaps a reduction = in the 'beacon segment' and expansion of the QRSS segment may be = beneficial. Looking to the future, if our access to the band is extended beyond = 03/08, then it may be nice to have beacons better organised. It is nice = to know when propagation is favourable but there is little point having = lots of signals from the same general geographic location. I know these = days locking a beacon to a time signal (MSF or GPS) is fairly = straightforward and perhaps a small network on a single frequency could = be a long term objective. For example. 4 stations on 1 frequency but = located in the 4 corners of the UK.. It would be very efficient on = spectrum and have less potential for desensing locally. Perhaps all this could be discussed at the HF convention where I'm sure = there will be a couple of lectures on 500k. Once again, thanks for the bandplan initiative 73 David In a message dated 26/07/2007 20:56:02 GMT Standard Time, = c.cjo@btinternet.com writes: CT DISCUSSION POINTS Obviously an ideal band plan would benefit as many stations as = possible to the inconvenience of as few as possible. There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes and beacons from = the 'straight' cw segment of the band. There may be a case for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times = of likely high cw activity (weekends). QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan locations. As most of the stations are congregated in the SE corner of the UK, = local QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated from QSO's = with more distant stations. It would be useful to have a QRP calling frequency to facilitate = 'homing in' on weaker stations. Is there a case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal = controlled transmission ? 73 G3XIZ SK ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C7D04E.7522CD30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry chaps,
This seems to escalating out of all proportion, = yet more=20 over-regulation - KISS!
Rog.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: G0MRF@aol.com =
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Cc: c.cjo@btinternet.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN

Hello Chris / group.
 
Thank you for the proposed band plan. Looks very sensible.
 
I suspect that as 500kHz continues to evolve, use of the different = modes=20 will experience peaks and troughs in their popularity and some expansion = or=20 contraction of segments may occur to accommodate these changes.
 
Of course there must always be the provision for a new station on = the band=20 who may be crystal controlled to transmit wherever they are able to. But = hopefully, when the interest takes hold, that person will want to build = a VFO of=20 some sort and will then be able to follow the bandplan.
 
Personally, I think the trend for transmitting beacons will quickly = wear=20 off. Equally I feel it would only take a couple of long distance = QSOs using=20 QRSS for that to become very popular albeit for a short time. = Nevertheless some=20 fairly consistent presence on the band does provide a signal=20 to listen to and encourage people to join in. Perhaps a = reduction in=20 the 'beacon segment' and expansion of the QRSS segment may be = beneficial.
 
Looking to the future, if our access to the band is extended beyond = 03/08,=20 then it may be nice to have beacons better organised.  It is nice = to know=20 when propagation is favourable but there is little point having lots of = signals=20 from the same general geographic location. I know these days locking a = beacon to=20 a time signal (MSF or GPS) is fairly straightforward and perhaps a small = network=20 on a single frequency could be a long term objective. For example.  = 4=20 stations on 1 frequency but  located in the 4 corners of the UK.. = It would=20 be very efficient on spectrum and have less potential for desensing=20 locally.
 
Perhaps all this could be discussed at the HF convention where I'm = sure=20 there will be a couple of lectures on 500k.
 
Once again, thanks for the bandplan initiative
 
73
 
David
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 26/07/2007 20:56:02 GMT Standard Time,=20 c.cjo@btinternet.com writes:
CT
DISCUSSION POINTS

Obviously an ideal band plan = would=20 benefit as many stations as possible to the inconvenience of as few as = possible.

There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes = and=20 beacons from the 'straight' cw segment of the band.

There may = be a case=20 for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times of likely high cw = activity=20 (weekends).

QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan=20 locations.

As most of the stations are congregated in the SE = corner of=20 the UK, local QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated = from QSO's=20 with more distant stations.

It would be useful to have a QRP = calling=20 frequency to facilitate 'homing in' on weaker stations.

Is = there=20 a  case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled=20 transmission ?

73 G3XIZ SK
 
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C7D04E.7522CD30--