X-GM-THRID: 1243069579461018781 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.87.11 with SMTP id k11cs27922wxb; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.151.14 with SMTP id y14mr2605886bud.1185542995028; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f8si3540340nfh.2007.07.27.06.29.51; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:29:55 -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 1IEPnr-0006Cw-Gr for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:24:23 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IEPnq-0006Cn-Ts for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:24:22 +0100 Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.91]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IEPnp-0002XX-IE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:24:22 +0100 Received: from dyn-62-56-104-234.dslaccess.co.uk ([62.56.104.234] helo=Tom) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtpa (AUTH telemetry) (Exim 4.42) id 1IEPnX-0006Ue-9p for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: <00a901c7d051$719950f0$1931383e@Tom> From: "Tom Boucher" To: References: <000201c7d046$7ee69fc0$7378e150@o> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:24:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C7D059.D2AAE3B0" 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: 462 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C7D059.D2AAE3B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Afraid I agree with Roger - it hardly qualifies as a 'band' anyway! = Beacons are useful when the frequency is sparsely populated as it is = currently. At evenings/week ends, let's just be aware that there may be = QSO's taking place and listen before transmitting. Tom G3OLB ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gw3UEP=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:02 PM Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN 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_00A6_01C7D059.D2AAE3B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Afraid I agree with Roger - it hardly qualifies as a 'band' anyway! = Beacons=20 are useful when the frequency is sparsely populated as it is = currently. At=20 evenings/week ends, let's just be aware that there may be QSO's taking = place and=20 listen before transmitting.
 
Tom G3OLB
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gw3UEP
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 = 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: LF: 500 - BAND = PLAN

Sorry chaps,
This seems to escalating out of all = proportion, yet=20 more over-regulation - KISS!
Rog.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: G0MRF@aol.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=20 band who may be crystal controlled to transmit wherever they are able = to. But=20 hopefully, when the interest takes hold, that person will want to = build a VFO=20 of 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=20 using QRSS for that to become very popular albeit for a short time.=20 Nevertheless some fairly consistent presence on the = band does=20 provide a signal to listen to and encourage people to join = in.=20 Perhaps a reduction in the 'beacon segment' and expansion of the QRSS = segment=20 may be beneficial.
 
Looking to the future, if our access to the band is extended = beyond=20 03/08, then it may be nice to have beacons better organised.  It = is nice=20 to know when propagation is favourable but there is little point = having lots=20 of signals from the same general geographic location. I know these = days=20 locking a beacon to a time signal (MSF or GPS) is fairly = straightforward and=20 perhaps a small network on a single frequency could be a long term = objective.=20 For example.  4 stations on 1 frequency but  located in the = 4=20 corners of the UK.. It would be very efficient on spectrum and have = less=20 potential for desensing 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=20 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=20 case for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times of likely = high cw=20 activity (weekends).

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

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

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

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

73 G3XIZ SK
 
------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C7D059.D2AAE3B0--