Return-Path: Received: from rly-de03.mx.aol.com (rly-de03.mail.aol.com [172.19.170.139]) by air-de05.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINDE053-4c04b22269d1a1; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-de03.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDE031-4c04b22269d1a1; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:01:51 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ3Ew-0005iv-2n for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:00:50 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NJ3Ev-0005im-EJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:00:49 +0000 Received: from cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.44]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NJ3Eq-00079p-4p for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:00:49 +0000 Received: from smtps01.kuleuven.be (smtpshost01.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.74]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D6B51C05A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:59:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from PC_van_Rik.fys.kuleuven.be (dhcp-10-33-85-106.fys.kuleuven.be [10.33.85.106]) by smtps01.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76C931E702 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:59:48 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:00:11 +0100 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe In-Reply-To: <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White> References: <88EEC52E6C874CCEB966804D073A3376@White> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091211105948.D76C931E702@smtps01.kuleuven.be> X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_10766237==.ALT" 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=HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 --=====================_10766237==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hello Marcus, if all stations switch at local midnight (UTC of course) this would result that in Europe there will be sub-band switching over a 4 hours period (from UA at the east to G/CT at the west), a period that both windows might be filled with "locals". Maybe it is better that all Europeans switch at the same moment (the same for North-America, and SE-Asia) ? 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T At 09:38 11/12/2009, you 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 > > --=====================_10766237==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hello Marcus,

if all stations switch at local midnight (UTC of course) this would result that in Europe there will be sub-band switching over a 4 hours period (from UA at the east to G/CT at the west), a period that both windows might be filled with "locals".
Maybe it is better that all Europeans switch at the same moment (the same for North-America, and SE-Asia) ?

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

At 09:38 11/12/2009, you 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
 
 
--=====================_10766237==.ALT--