Return-Path: Received: from rly-dc08.mx.aol.com (rly-dc08.mail.aol.com [172.19.136.37]) by air-dc09.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDC093-b37497cd213354; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:56:56 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-dc08.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDC083-b37497cd213354; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:56:52 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LRC22-00061N-AA for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:56:38 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LRC21-00061E-QP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:56:37 +0000 Received: from smtp5.freeserve.com ([193.252.22.152]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LRC21-0005O0-1D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:56:37 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3422.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 81A861C00082 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:56:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from AGB (unknown [91.109.23.220]) by mwinf3422.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 3C5551C00081 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:56:28 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090125205628247.3C5551C00081@mwinf3422.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <7B54A120DE8D4FF88A12CB8BA1655ADB@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <20090125092908.0aec06a4@lurcher><7EC707A6E2D94414AEBBC52C6159581C@JimPC><002001c97f0a$cf16fac0$ae01a8c0@youry0mkaz8jaq><20090125165335.47fc3399@lurcher><7690F13DCE5D44BA8A5AA126607E7979@JimPC> <20090125180430.1d63e1c7@lurcher> <6449616DC58940A19C537A59F53828DA@AGB> <00d201c97f20$bd909520$6401a8c0@asus> <00f101c97f2d$e530b440$6401a8c0@asus> In-Reply-To: <00f101c97f2d$e530b440$6401a8c0@asus> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:56:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8050.1202 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8050.1202 X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Gary, I would think that in the original concept of the software, 600 and 1200 mtrs may not of figured too highly, if a tall ? as such most Hf stations will have arrays with similar conversion efficiency's , dipole at 2.3 db 1/4 1.~ db beam with 3 to 5 dbi , only a few db's spread and nothing like the negative gain of vlf arrays , my 35 ft lop load is like using a 18 inch vertical on 7 mhz ? (must try that one day) So declaring the feed power on hf is reasonable with only say 6 db of error ? G .. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Gary - G4WGT" Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:45 PM To: Subject: RE: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 > > Graham, LF, > > I do agree that ERP is more meaningful & as Mal & Andy stated it is the > criteria with which the licence is approved. > > My comment was to follow the WSPR recommended method as adopting ERP would > mean there are two "standards". > > I ERP is adopted for LF then it should be international & not just UK, so > an > official announcement by the main WSPR group would be required. > Comments please. > > Gary - G4WGT. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Graham > Sent: 25 January 2009 20:29 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 > > Gary, > > I don't think a guard band is really needed as if you set the centre > carrier > > frequency to 503.9 , then operating at the extreme edges is not really > possible, you're right on the edge of the waterfall. the deviation is > only > round 6 hz > > Re power .. I would say, the erp is the most meaningful, actual power > supplied to the antenna without the performance data of the array doesn't > really mean too much ? > > G .. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Gary - G4WGT" > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:11 PM > To: > Subject: RE: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 > >> >> Hi All, >> >> In agreement with John & Graham, I believe that makes sense. The top part >> of >> the band is probably the least used area so we just need to agree on a >> 200Hz >> slot of either 503.800 to 504.000KHz with no guard band or 503.700 to >> 503.900KHz with a 100Hz guard band. >> >> My WSPR beacon is now active using dial frequency 502.000KHz & 503.550KHz >> data. >> >> Looks like Andy just beat me to the announcement. >> >> 73 >> >> Gary - G4WGT >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Graham >> Sent: 25 January 2009 18:32 >> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org >> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 >> >> John, >> >> Looks close to my post , just, as wspr is such a narrow mode, could move >> to >> >> the band edge without problems >> clear of the occasional qrss slightly lower down >> >> With a move to vfo/exciter control, defining the wspr slot is a >> reasonable >> concept as it will allow other 'casual' >> monitor stations to be established .. and negate the number of post >> needed >> to announce a test ! >> >> What of the beacons that used this area of the band , are they qrt or >> just >> sleeping ? >> >> G .. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "John P-G" >> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:04 PM >> To: >> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 >> >>> >>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:40:27 +0000 >>> Andy Talbot wrote: >>> >>>> Is there some sort of unofficial bandplan on this band? >>> >>> Oh no! >>> >>> Please let's not get into this again.... >>> >>> At the moment there is no bandplan, but general concensus would >>> indicate "beacons at the band edges - real QSOs in the middle". >>> >>> The current WSPR activity around 503.5 (502.0 dial) seems reasonable, >>> although moving up a few hundred Hz wouldn't hurt, say to 502.3 dial >>> which gives a 200Hz window at 503.7 - 503.9 >>> >>> There are often CW mode beacons near the bottom of the band - GI4DPE, >>> GW3UEP and others, and it's convenient to have them there - it allows >>> monitoring them and SK6RUD concurrently. >>> >>> >>> That's just my view on how things have evolved. >>> >>> "Real Man's CW" seems to live around 502.63 >>> >>> John >>> GM4SLV >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date: >>> 1/24/2009 20:40 >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date: >> 1/24/2009 20:40 >> > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date: > 1/24/2009 20:40 >