Return-Path: Received: from mtain-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.13]) by air-dc01.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDC013-864d4cdfedab30b; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:09:47 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 00DE9380000DB; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:09:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PHdFh-0003ea-V1 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:08:17 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PHdFh-0003eR-8Z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:08:17 +0000 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PHdFf-0004PA-B4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:08:17 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar8CANJ730xcEYqR/2dsb2JhbACQaoMxDo4wcbx5gwQIgj4EgVyMIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,195,1288569600"; d="scan'208,217";a="320903886" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.17.138.145]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 14 Nov 2010 14:08:08 +0000 Message-ID: <007301cb8405$5dc7a8e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4CDEC5B8.17075.79A05A@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>, <4CDF089E.4090604@gmx.de> <4CDFBCBE.5787.60D7DE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <2BE70532063C4C12A0E3AD8515E27D57@White> <002d01cb83f5$f4842c00$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:08:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01CB8405.5D7431B0" 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_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1d600d4cdfeda91efe X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01CB8405.5D7431B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jay Another point which is different from some years back. The numbers are not there anymore, and what does exist is spread acros= s the bands 9, 137, 500 Kcs for example 2 ops active on 9 kcs at times= , 3 or 4 on 137 kcs and 500 kcs hardly used, only heard 2 stns today= testing and went away. Then there is mode diversity dividing the act= y between WSPR and CW and most SWL'S are not interested in WSPR. The good days on the lower frequencies are gone, definitely not attrac= ting new comers, the numbers speak for themselves. I must say the other mf band 160 metres is vy active world wide with= CW acty 73 de mal/g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: jrusgrove@comcast.net=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:17 PM Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Markus, Group Since my name was mentioned I'll make a quick post.=20 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 simpl= y 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 betw= een 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. Prov= iding 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.= =20 Don't change anything on my account ... there's plenty of other inte= resting things to do on VLF, LF and MF!=20 Jay =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Markus Vester=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 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 pr= oblem here, and I appreciate your careful choice of operating techniqu= es to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, there we= re only very few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and France wh= ere 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 we= re 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 larg= er 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 contin= ue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom end.=20 Kind regards, Markus (DF6NM) From: Mike Dennison=20 Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k' Hartmut, You are right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons= =20 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= =20 are grabbers in Alaska, Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia= but=20 not one covers the 136.320kHz sub-band. That sub-band was originally created when there were many Eu (most= ly=20 UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast of Ameri= ca - there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs. The id= ea=20 of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QRM to= =20 each other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in DX=20 working, and seemingly no east coast American stations routinely= =20 monitoring. =20 I try not to QRM those Eu stations who are monitoring for US and= =20 Russian beacons. This is achieved by not beaconing every day, and= by=20 not beaconing continuously (which is why I synchronise each=20 transmission with the start of each hour). My frequency is much lo= wer=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 OE3GHB. There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during two-way DX QSOs= ,=20 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 else have a view on this? Mike, G3XDV =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01CB8405.5D7431B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jay
Another point which is different from= some years=20 back.
The numbers are not there anymore, an= d what does=20 exist is spread across the bands 9, 137, 500 Kcs for example 2 ops act= ive on 9=20 kcs at times, 3 or 4 on 137 kcs and 500 kcs hardly used, only heard 2= stns today=20 testing and went away. Then  there is mode diversity dividing the= acty=20 between WSPR and CW
and most SWL'S are not interested in= =20 WSPR.
The good days on the lower frequencie= s are gone,=20 definitely not attracting new comers, the numbers speak for=20 themselves.
I must say the other mf band 160 metr= es is vy=20 active world wide with CW acty
73 de mal/g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20= 10 12:17=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq= ....

Markus, Group
 
Since my name was mentioned I'll ma= ke a quick=20 post. 
 
We may have a chicken and egg situa= tion here. Up=20 until several years ago I routinely monitored and reported = ;on EU=20 activity on LF ... that is until EU stations moved en masse to= the 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= crumbs=20 of weak signals between long callsigns strings. Worse yet, = ;set up=20 for overnight captures because no US stations are active only to wak= e up to a=20 screen full of US stations that got a late start. I gave= =20 up.
=  
Now there's talk of merging th= e EU and US=20 500 kHz WSPR windows. Providing spots last winter, especia= lly for=20 low power EU stations, was an interesting and challenging pursu= it. But it=20 won't be if the majority of WSPR time slots are clobbered by st= rong local=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  
 
     &= nbsp; 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14,= 2010 6:17=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS fr= eq....

Dear Mike,
 
first of all, let me say that you= r signal has=20 never created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choi= ce of=20 operating techniques to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, there were only= very=20 few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and France&n= bsp;where=20 being desensitized when you and XGJ were on=20 simultaneously. But on the other hand, I think I would have= =20 a problem if I lived much closer to you.
 
I als= o completely=20 understand your point about the lack of feedback from grabber= s=20 operating in the designated Eu slot. In the past, we wer= e=20 rewarded by excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laur= ence. In=20 my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF grabber= operator=20 to include 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, becaus= e the=20 latter provided a larger gap between American Loran lines -= which is no=20 more an issue now. But recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 13= 7.0 has=20 been reactivated. How much does it affect stateside reception= on=20 136.32? If they continue, we may consider to bring the slot back= to the=20 bottom end. 
 
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
 
=
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60=20 137k'

Hartmut,

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

That sub-band was originally creat= ed when=20 there were many Eu (mostly
UK) stations chasing QSOs and repor= ts from=20 the east coast of America -
 there were even several Canad= ians=20 capable of two-way QSOs. The idea
of the split frequency was= that these=20 QSOs should not cause QRM to
each other. Now there are very fe= w Eu=20 stations interested in DX
working, and seemingly no east coast= American=20 stations routinely
monitoring. 

I try not to QRM= those Eu=20 stations who are monitoring for US and
Russian beacons. This= is achieved=20 by not beaconing every day, and by
not beaconing continuously= (which is=20 why I synchronise each
transmission with the start of each hou= r). My=20 frequency is much lower
than most US and Russian beacons. I ha= ve also=20 announced that if my
transmissions cause anyone any problems,= I will=20 close down. In
practice, unless the receiving station is withi= n about=20 150km of me
there is little chance of real QRM - last night EW= 6GB was=20 fully
readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM an= d=20 OE3GHB.

There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during= two-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.

Do= es anyone=20 else have a view on this?

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

------=_NextPart_000_0070_01CB8405.5D7431B0--