From: Gerhard Hickl <gerhard.hickl@aon.at>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <4B221D77.23434.434B0D@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
References: <BC520BF69FBC4F4B9B8E1C9B8AAB8A9B@White>
	 , <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White>
	 <4B221D77.23434.434B0D@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
Disposition-Notification-To: gerhard.hickl@aon.at
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1260545211.2370.107.camel@gerhard-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hello folks!

I was one of the "bad boys" transmitting yesterday night in the
"waterhole"...The purpose were some test with the antenna where I rely
on grabbers.

But of course, I didn't choose my qrg by chance or to interfere with
somebody else. No, rather the reasoning is what Mike writes in his post
below.

Some of the grabbers even don't have a window around 700 but only show
the "waterhole". I also know, that people who run grabbers can't be
blamed for not offering this opportunity.

I'm not aware if offering such a 2nd window is a lot of work or if it is
just "done by software". Anyways, I would appreciate such an
alternative.

Cheers es 73

OE3GHB

Gerhard




Am Freitag, den 11.12.2009, 10:22 +0000 schrieb Mike Dennison:
> Markus is absolutely right. This should reduce QRM for those 
> monitoring for DX, and improve the chance of two-way DX QSOs. 
> However, I think many stations have recently used the upper slot 
> because most grabbers are set for this area (except Markus's own 
> excellent system). Is it possible for more grabbers to be dual 
> frequency?
> 
> Mke, G3XDV
> ==========
> 
> 
> On 11 Dec 2009 at 9:38, Markus Vester wrote:
> 
> > Dear LF,
> > 
> > the passage should have said:
> > 
> > Taking into account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that
> > all stations should transmit in the UPPER band during their evenings
> > until local midnight, and then QSY to the lower band for the rest of
> > the night. 
> > 
> > Sorry for the confusion.
> > 
> > 73, Markus 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Markus Vester 
> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:14 AM
> > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org 
> > Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
> > 
> > 
> > Dear LF group,
> > 
> > recently we find the "transatlantic waterhole" around 137.777 kHz
> > quite busy. Several Europeans have started beaconing within this
> > segment. And there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, with
> > wide traces covering up possible transatlantic DX signalling
> > frequencies.
> > 
> > During the last years, we have attempted to split the frequency bands
> > for both directions of transatlantic work. Traditional segments were
> > around 137.777 kHz west-to-east (for Americans transmitting towards
> > Eu), and around 136.320 kHz east-west (for Eu to stateside). Slow
> > modes (QRSS or DFCW, 60 second and longer) were used almost
> > exclusively there, and several stations were able to successfully
> > cross the pond in either direction.
> > 
> > The situation has become a little more intricate as more stations from
> > other parts of the world (eg. Asia, China, Japan) are joining the game
> > with sensitive receivers and good signals. But I still think it would
> > be helpful to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much as
> > possible. 
> > 
> > My suggestion would be to stick with the east-west versus west-east
> > allocation of the two slots. Taking into account the path of mutual
> > darkness, this would mean that all stations should transmit in the
> > lower band during their evenings until local midnight, and then QSY to
> > the lower band for the rest of the night. Receiver settings would of
> > course be vice versa.
> > 
> > I'm aware that this scheme cannot be perfect and universal. It won't
> > cover North-South hauls, and would not protect signals during early or
> > late openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would still be
> > very useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discourage
> > anyone from putting out a signal, and certainly reject the notion of
> > anything reminiscent of a "band police". I just think a little
> > coordination may help all of us to be successful on this challenging
> > and fascinating band.
> > 
> > Let me have your thoughts...
> > 
> > 73 de Markus, DF6NM
> > 
> > http://freenet-homepage.de/df6nm/Grabber.htm
> > 
> 
> 
>