Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mp11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mp11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.193.79]) by air-ma06.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMA061-b5284cdfd3e7394; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:19:51 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 52EA3380000B4; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PHbWy-0003AB-5a for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:18:00 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PHbWx-0003A2-Bd for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:59 +0000 Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.59.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PHbWv-0003nA-Uj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:59 +0000 Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X0Ag1f0030xGWP85E0HrGH; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:51 +0000 Received: from JAYDELL ([76.23.233.102]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X0Hq1f00B2DDHkk3Y0HrwR; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:17:51 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01cb83f5$f4842c00$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> From: To: References: <4CDEC5B8.17075.79A05A@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>, <4CDF089E.4090604@gmx.de> <4CDFBCBE.5787.60D7DE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <2BE70532063C4C12A0E3AD8515E27D57@White> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:17:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB83CC.0B7C1780" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc14f4cdfd3e5022c X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB83CC.0B7C1780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus, Group Since my name was mentioned I'll make a quick post. We may have a chicken and egg situation here. Up until several years ago I routinely monitored and reported on EU activity on LF ... that is until EU stations moved en masse to the US T/A window. It is simply impossible to receive weak signals from EU while BIG US stations are on the air. One is reduced to looking for crumbs of weak signals between long callsigns strings. Worse yet, set up for overnight captures because no US stations are active only to wake up to a screen full of US stations that got a late start. I gave up. Now there's talk of merging the EU and US 500 kHz WSPR windows. Providing spots last winter, especially for low power EU stations, was an interesting and challenging pursuit. But it won't be if the majority of WSPR time slots are clobbered by strong local groundwave signals. Don't change anything on my account ... there's plenty of other interesting things to do on VLF, LF and MF! Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Vester To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 6:17 AM Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Dear Mike, first of all, let me say that your signal has never created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice of operating techniques to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, there were only very few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and France where being desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. But on the other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much closer to you. I also completely understand your point about the lack of feedback from grabbers operating in the designated Eu slot. In the past, we were rewarded by excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence. In my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF grabber operator to include an Eu slot as well. Regarding choice of frequency: If I remember right, we went from the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because the latter provided a larger gap between American Loran lines - which is no more an issue now. But recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0 has been reactivated. How much does it affect stateside reception on 136.32? If they continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom end. Kind regards, Markus (DF6NM) From: Mike Dennison Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k' Hartmut, You are right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons should be in that part of the band. However, the reality is that no- one is listening there (apart from a couple of Eu grabbers). There are grabbers in Alaska, Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but not one covers the 136.320kHz sub-band. That sub-band was originally created when there were many Eu (mostly UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast of America - there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs. The idea of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QRM to each other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in DX working, and seemingly no east coast American stations routinely monitoring. I try not to QRM those Eu stations who are monitoring for US and Russian beacons. This is achieved by not beaconing every day, and by not beaconing continuously (which is why I synchronise each transmission with the start of each hour). My frequency is much lower than most US and Russian beacons. I have also announced that if my transmissions cause anyone any problems, I will close down. In practice, unless the receiving station is within about 150km of me there is little chance of real QRM - last night EW6GB was fully readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM and OE3GHB. There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during two-way DX QSOs, or tests involving lots of activity. I will be the first to use it again if any DX stations are prepared to monitor it. Does anyone else have a view on this? Mike, G3XDV ========== ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB83CC.0B7C1780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Markus, Group
 
Since my name was mentioned I'll make= a quick=20 post. 
 
We may have a chicken and egg situati= on here. Up=20 until several years ago I routinely monitored and reported o= n EU=20 activity on LF ... that is until EU stations moved en masse to th= e US T/A=20 window. It is simply impossible to receive weak signals from EU= while BIG=20 US stations are on the air. One is reduced to looking for cr= umbs=20 of weak signals between long callsigns strings. Worse yet, s= et up for=20 overnight captures because no US stations are active only to wake up= to a screen=20 full of US stations that got a late start. I gave up.=
 
Now there's talk of merging the= EU and US 500=20 kHz WSPR windows. Providing spots last winter, especially fo= r low=20 power EU stations, was an interesting and challenging pursuit. Bu= t it won't=20 be if the majority of WSPR time slots are clobbered by strong loc= al=20 groundwave signals.
 
Don't change anything on my account= ... there's=20 plenty of other interesting things to do on VLF, LF and=20 MF! 
 
Jay  
 
      = ; 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20= 10 6:17=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq= ....

Dear Mike,
 
first of all, let me say that your= signal has=20 never created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice= of=20 operating techniques to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, there were only very= few occasions,=20 when spectrograms in Holland and France where being=20 desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. = ;But on=20 the other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much= closer to=20 you.
 
I also= completely=20 understand your point about the lack of feedback from grabbers= operating=20 in the designated Eu slot. In the past, we were rewarded&n= bsp;by=20 excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence. In my opinion= , the=20 point of the story is to motivate every LF grabber operator to inclu= de=20 an Eu slot as well.
 
Regarding choice of frequency: If= I remember=20 right, we went from the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because= the=20 latter provided a larger gap between American Loran lines - whi= ch is no=20 more an issue now. But recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.= 0 has been=20 reactivated. How much does it affect stateside reception on 136= .32? If=20 they continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom= =20 end. 
 
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k'
=
Hartmut,

You are=20 right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons
should= be in=20 that part of the band. However, the reality is that no-
one is li= stening=20 there (apart from a couple of Eu grabbers). There
are grabbers= in Alaska,=20 Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but
not one covers the= 136.320kHz=20 sub-band.

That sub-band was originally created when there wer= e many Eu=20 (mostly
UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coas= t of=20 America -
 there were even several Canadians capable of two-= way QSOs.=20 The idea
of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not= cause QRM=20 to
each other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in= DX=20
working, and seemingly no east coast American stations routinely= =20
monitoring. 

I try not to QRM those Eu stations who= are=20 monitoring for US and
Russian beacons. This is achieved by not= beaconing=20 every day, and by
not beaconing continuously (which is why I syn= chronise=20 each
transmission with the start of each hour). My frequency is= much lower=20
than most US and Russian beacons. I have also announced that if= my=20
transmissions cause anyone any problems, I will close down. In= =20
practice, unless the receiving station is within about 150km of= me=20
there is little chance of real QRM - last night EW6GB was fully= =20
readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM and=20 OE3GHB.

There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during tw= o-way DX=20 QSOs,
or tests involving lots of activity. I will be the first= to use it=20
again if any DX stations are prepared to monitor it.

Does= anyone=20 else have a view on this?

Mike,=20 G3XDV
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB83CC.0B7C1780--