Message-ID: <006601c96428$a8c6cc80$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <000701c962f1$b79b04c0$4201a8c0@home> <016901c963c8$1c543720$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <494EE0A8.5040607@telus.net> <004501c963cf$24a20db0$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <000901c96356$9dffe3e0$4201a8c0@home>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:30:14 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


NO WE DO  NOT WANT THE 3 KHZ AVAILABLE ON 500 SWAMPED WITH UNATTENDED 
BEACONS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE IN REAL TIME QSO'S
You are not doing anything that cannot be done on CW or qrs cw, which takes 
up a lot less bandwidth.
There is plenty of spectrum space available on the other MF band ie 160 
metres for your experiments.
Sri Jim but the beacon business is getting out of hand, especially 
unattended. If there is a QRM problem there is noone about to rectify the 
situation and QSY like one does in real time QSO activity.
This band needs a rething if Beacons are to continue and probably some input 
to OFCOM for their observations.
An odd beacon transmission is not objectional but proposing to swamp the 500 
khz slot with automated modes is.
In the early days of negiotations with OFCOM the proposed and acceptable 
mode was to be CW and variations thereof ie qrs, in keeping with the 
traditions of the past use by the Marine service.
They did relent and permit other modes but did not intend the band to be 
swamped with unattended beacons.

de Mal/G3KEV



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: LF: Re: 500kHz WSPR Beacon


> Dear Mark, LF Group,
>
> Thanks for the info on reception of the WSPR beacon. It was shut down at
> about 0830utc.
>
> The data from all the receiving stations out as far as TF3HZ at about 
> 1800km
> is so far quite similar, with the SNR figures showing deep fades, as one
> would expect. Curiously, there does not seem to be a major difference in 
> the
> SNR figures recorded at different distances.
>
> So far, both myself and previously G0NBD have been copied in the USA using
> WSPR - I think this is both the stations that have actually tried, and
> positive reports have come within a couple of attempts, so this looks like 
> a
> quite viable mode for transatlantic beacons. Although the band allocations
> do not align between UK and US, I think it should be possible to operate
> split-frequency to produce a bi-directional trans-atlantic WSPR beacon
> network. Anyone interested?
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1859 - Release Date: 12/20/2008 
2:34 PM