Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.180.11]) by air-dc05.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDC051-86014ce00483e4; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:47:15 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0084E380000F5; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PHels-0003v6-Pm for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:45:36 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PHelr-0003ux-VY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:45:35 +0000 Received: from out1.ip08ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.244]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PHelp-0004no-IT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:45:35 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqADAAeT30xcEYqR/2dsb2JhbACQZwODMQ6DF4sZcb0dgwQIgj4EgVyMIYJV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,195,1288569600"; d="scan'208,217";a="468640791" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.17.138.145]) by out1.ip08ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 14 Nov 2010 15:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: <007f01cb8412$f4be96c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4CDEC5B8.17075.79A05A@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com><4CDF089E.4090604@gmx.de><4CDFBCBE.5787.60D7DE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com><2BE70532063C4C12A0E3AD8515E27D57@White><002d01cb83f5$f4842c00$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL><007301cb8405$5dc7a8e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:45:25 -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_007C_01CB8412.F4797770" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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: 3039ac1db40b4ce0048101fd X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_007C_01CB8412.F4797770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The facts speak for themselves not my doing, there were over 30 count= ries active on 137 a few yeas ago, now three or four hardly encouragin= g. All the recent hype by a few about getting on 9 Kcs, where are they no= w, since several permits have been issued. I have a 500 metre inv L antenna system installed and resonated on 9= Kcs looking for acty on CW or QRS but stress NOT looking for QRS 600= - 6000 atomic clock signals ctl. I want to see someone transmitting= that has put some effort into putting out a signal that can be copied= a few hundred miles away.=20 If there is enough acty I would consider transmitting a signal that me= ets the above criteria. Who at present has the capability of receiving such signals in the UK.= When can I expect some acty from you? de g3kev =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Lapthorn=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:57 PM Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.... Mal, As always, you paint a negative view of life on LF.=20 You may be right about LF activity levels, but it is for us all to= encourage others, not put them off, and there is a place for CW, WSPR= , QRSS and ROS etc on the LF bands. Experimenting on MF, LF and VLF, albeit very simply, has been a wond= erful learning experience for me and the good old days are still very= much here with plenty to explore and discover. =20 Be happy - life is too short to be always miserable! 73s Roger G3XBM On 14 November 2010 14:08, mal hamilton wrot= e: Jay Another point which is different from some years back. The numbers are not there anymore, and what does exist is spread= across 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 acty between WSPR and CW and most SWL'S are not interested in WSPR. The good days on the lower frequencies are gone, definitely not at= tracting new comers, the numbers speak for themselves. I must say the other mf band 160 metres is vy active world wide wi= th 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= simply impossible to receive weak signals from EU while BIG US statio= ns are on the air. One is reduced to looking for crumbs of weak signal= s between long callsigns strings. Worse yet, set up for overnight capt= ures because no US stations are active only to wake up to a screen ful= l 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, wa= s an interesting and challenging pursuit. But it won't be if the major= ity of WSPR time slots are clobbered by strong local groundwave signal= s.=20 Don't change anything on my account ... there's plenty of other= interesting 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 an= y problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice of operating tech= niques to mitigate potential interference. As far as I could see, ther= e were only very few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and Franc= e where being desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. Bu= t on the other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much cl= oser to you. I also completely understand your point about the lack of feed= back from grabbers operating in the designated Eu slot. In the past,= we were rewarded by excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laur= ence. In my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF gr= abber operator to include an Eu slot as well. Regarding choice of frequency: If I remember right, we went fr= om the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because the latter provided a la= rger 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 beac= ons=20 should be in that part of the band. However, the reality is th= at no- one is listening there (apart from a couple of Eu grabbers).= There=20 are grabbers in Alaska, Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russ= ia but=20 not one covers the 136.320kHz sub-band. That sub-band was originally created when there were many Eu= (mostly=20 UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast of= America - there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs. Th= e idea=20 of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QR= M to=20 each other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in= DX=20 working, and seemingly no east coast American stations routine= ly=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 muc= h 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 full= y=20 readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM and OE3G= HB. 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 us= e 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 --=20 http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 ------=_NextPart_000_007C_01CB8412.F4797770 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The facts speak for themselves not my= doing,=20 there  were over 30 countries active on 137 a few yeas ago, now= three or=20 four hardly encouraging.
All the recent hype by a few about ge= tting on 9=20 Kcs, where are they now, since several permits have been=20 issued.
I have a 500 metre inv L antenna=   system=20 installed and resonated on 9 Kcs looking for acty on CW or QRS but=20 stress NOT looking for QRS 600 - 6000 atomic clock signals= ctl.=20  I want to see someone transmitting that has put some effort into= putting=20 out a signal that can be copied a few hundred miles away. =
If there is enough acty I would consi= der=20 transmitting a signal that meets the above criteria.
Who at present has the capability of= receiving such=20 signals in the UK. When can I expect some acty from you?
de g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20= 10 2:57=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq= ....

Mal,

As always, you paint a negative view of= life on LF.=20

You may be right about LF activity levels, but it is for us= all to=20 encourage others, not put them off, and there is= a=20 place for CW, WSPR, QRSS and ROS etc on the LF bands.

Experim= enting on=20 MF, LF and VLF, albeit very simply, has been a wonderful learning ex= perience=20 for me and the good old days are still very much here with plenty to= explore=20 and discover. 

Be happy - life is too short to be alway= s=20 miserable!

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 14 November 2010 14:08, mal hamilton <g3ke= vmal@talktalk.net>=20 wrote:
Jay
Another point which is different= from some=20 years back.
The numbers are not there anymore= , and what=20 does exist is spread across the bands 9, 137, 500 Kcs for example= 2 ops=20 active on 9 kcs at times, 3 or 4 on 137 kcs and 500 kcs hardly use= d, only=20 heard 2 stns today testing and went away. Then  there is mode= diversity=20 dividing the acty between WSPR and CW
and most SWL'S are not interested= in=20 WSPR.
The good days on the lower freque= ncies are=20 gone, definitely not attracting new comers, the numbers speak for= =20 themselves.
I must say the other mf band 160= metres is vy=20 active world wide with CW acty
73 de mal/g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Sunday, November 14= , 2010 12:17=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS= =20 freq....

Markus, Group
 
Since my name was mentioned I'l= l make a quick=20 post. 
 
We may have a chicken and egg= situation here.=20 Up until several years ago I routinely monitored and report= ed on=20 EU activity on LF ... that is until EU stations moved en ma= sse to the=20 US T/A window. It is simply impossible to receive weak sign= als from=20 EU while BIG US stations are on the air. One is reduced=20 to looking for crumbs of weak signals between long cal= lsigns=20 strings. Worse yet, set up for overnight captures because= no US=20 stations are active only to wake up to a screen full of US= stations=20 that got a late start. I gave up.
 
Now there's talk of merging&nbs= p;the EU and=20 US 500 kHz WSPR windows. Providing spots last winter,= especially=20 for low power EU stations, was an interesting and challengi= ng=20 pursuit. But it won't be if the majority of WSPR time slots= are=20 clobbered by strong local groundwave signals.
 
Don't change anything on my acc= ount ...=20 there's plenty of other interesting things to do on VLF, LF= and=20 MF! 
 
Jay  
 
    = ;   
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----=
= From:=20 Markus Vester
Sent: Sunday, November= 14, 2010=20 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRS= S=20 freq....

Dear Mike,
 
first of all, let me say that= your signal=20 has never created any problem here, and I appreciate your care= ful choice=20 of operating techniques to mitigate potential interference.&nb= sp;As far as I could see, there= were only very=20 few occasions, when spectrograms in Holland and=20 France where being desensitized when you and XG= J were on=20 simultaneously. But on the other hand, I think I would ha= ve=20 a problem if I lived much closer to you.
 
I= also completely=20 understand your point about the lack of feedback from gra= bbers=20 operating in the designated Eu slot. In the past, we = ;were=20 rewarded by excellent captures, for example from Jay and= Laurence.=20 In my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF= grabber=20 operator to include an Eu slot as well.
 
Regarding choice of frequency= : If I=20 remember right, we went from the original 135.92 kHz to=20 136.32, because the latter provided a larger gap bet= ween=20 American Loran lines - which is no more an issue now. But=20 recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0 has been reacti= vated. How=20 much does it affect stateside reception on 136.32? If the= y=20 continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom= =20 end. 
 
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
 

From: Mike= Dennison=20
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60=20 137k'
=
Hartmut,
You are right. In the past I=20 have strongly argued that Eu beacons
should be in that par= t of the=20 band. However, the reality is that no-
one is listening the= re (apart=20 from a couple of Eu grabbers). There
are grabbers in Alask= a, Western=20 Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but
not one covers the 13= 6.320kHz=20 sub-band.

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

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

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

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

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




--
http://g3= xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/use= r/g3xbm
G3XBM   GQRP=20 1678    ISWL G11088
------=_NextPart_000_007C_01CB8412.F4797770--