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)
From: <m0fmt@beeb.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20070726231323.ISV85662@lon1-mailstore-2.visp.demon.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:13:23 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: LF: BEACON - G3XIZ - 503.947 - BAND
 PLAN
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="-----29fb05c5e917491f04b57ed673b93aee"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O


-------29fb05c5e917491f04b57ed673b93aee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi All 
I am being embolden by the mails I am seeing on this subject.
I think Chris knows my views on this matter.
I am heartened by Chris's decision to move way up the band. 
He no doubt remembers my mail about this some weeks ago.
However I will reiterate that there are plenty of beacons 
available to us just out of band high and low side,  do we 
need them in band?
I recently wrote to Mal in support of him on this subject. 
The trouble is I am not much of an operator myself  but do 
prefer to hear live cw rather than machine Morse. And if I 
am being blatted by a strong signal I much prefer to be 
reading  it as an interesting qso rather than an 
interminable succession of call signs sent at a deadly slow 
rate. The whole thing becomes the dialogue of the deaf  
with., if you are lucky, a reply by e-mail which is a rather 
asymmetric form of communication.  

Sorry Chris but this will not be a surprise to you. Having 
said the above I am indebted to you for all your help and 
encouragement.

Vy 73 Petefmt

-------29fb05c5e917491f04b57ed673b93aee
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
	name="Message 1.eml"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="Message 1.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Return-Path: <>
Received: from lon1-mail-1.visp.demon.net (EHLO lon1-mail-1.visp.demon.net) ([193.195.70.4])
	by lon1-mailstore-2.visp.demon.net (MOS 3.7.5a-GA FastPath queued)
	with ESMTP id ISV24771;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:37:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from lon1-hub-4.mail.demon.net (EHLO lon1-hub.mail.demon.net) ([194.217.242.245])
	by lon1-mail-1.visp.demon.net (MOS 3.7.5a-GA FastPath)
	with ESMTP id FJC10574;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:37:10 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [193.82.116.20] (helo=post.thorcom.com)
	by lon1-hub.mail.demon.net with esmtp id 1IE5On-0001GC-HS
	for m0fmt@beeb.net; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:37:09 +0000
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
	id 1IE5LG-0006oh-9b
	for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:33:30 +0100
Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net)
	by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
	id 1IE5LF-0006oY-Rc
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:33:29 +0100
Received: from smtp813.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.73])
	by relay2.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <dave@davesergeant.com>)
	id 1IE5LE-0007zX-Do
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:33:29 +0100
Received: (qmail 33639 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2007 15:33:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Dave) (dsergeant@btinternet.com@81.157.212.26 with login)
  by smtp813.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2007 15:33:22 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 1KcJ7ucVM1keTx5n90RS_8SictM5cQDBRDRRbwyxN1jxK.5OtZDH6jc5UWtROx0SyAKUim1GsCb2n9AcYtbHBsGKyTUo8_GF_qkWQbbyw_7VNpYv
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dave@davesergeant.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:33:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <46A8CCD3.2806.22EC818@dave.davesergeant.com>
In-reply-to: <31599.12389.qm@web86402.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <31599.12389.qm@web86402.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Content-description: Mail message body
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.081
Subject: Re: LF: BEACON - G3XIZ - 503.947 - BAND PLAN
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
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=none 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

On 26 Jul 2007 at 15:55, CHRISTOPHER OSBORN wrote:

> I've been calling CQ on CW for quite a while but had no takers so will
> be beaconing QRSS3 on 503.947 kHz for an hour or so.
> 
> As usual all reports are welcome.
> I can beacon through the night if anyone would derive useful data from
> this.
> 
> I really think it's time for a 'band plan / code of conduct' for 500
> kHz. I for one would adhere to anything generally agreed to. How about
> an on-line questionaire to operators / listeners ?
> 
> 73 Chris G3XIZ

I would support the current trend for beacons/QRSS to be towards the 
top end of the band. There are quite a few people crystal controlled 
on 502.0 and with an (apparent) increase in activity at the moment it 
seems sensible to keep the area above and below there available for 
CW QSOs. I found this morning listening to G4ADR calling CQ on 502.0 
immediately followed by a QRZ from Adrian G4GDR and was a bit 
hesitant which of them to call when there was no response. Almost a 
pileup! We really need at least 1.5kHz to accomodate the current 
number of active CW ops and to allow for possible increased activity 
in the future.

I am not sure an on line poll would work, there is always a problem 
getting people to vote... (and you know my views on QRSS).

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com


-------29fb05c5e917491f04b57ed673b93aee--