Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dk08.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dk08.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.180.12]) by air-mc06.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMC063-a9754cdff9a2205; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:00:50 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk08.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 3F0CA38000050; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PHe1G-0003mg-3r for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:57:26 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PHe1F-0003mX-BB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:57:25 +0000 Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PHe1C-0004bL-QP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:57:25 +0000 Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so4466941bwz.16 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:57:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JE6BizhMrx/qUg8QvhxHVBxktmN8TzFEPG8mXNbPkoY=; b=d/adF/rPszQhyApBebavK6Wlv22wdg4dBHkk7dzBhYOo7XES/UxdCoYREZtR/CdEqk AUJcNgCxROp4k3kAaS6uIX7pUH4dKy7ch4SeDjI2w/PfoghZ2f9MTyzeTZSJdBr4F39c OTSvrBspkdej9rHLSoLpor/6YYsxlZG6PL+Ic= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=hF8ETKGKc/9X6ygkSPS27IhPNJ2lRNV01Oa13H/OClBK/KoIfFo2OLZ+2EFKmdN2lB e93ogXmHKkx9X6hDy/Sd6/0oqopQlPeEMwQyawejH7FF1FX+WS/1aATTTPkKD/4DUXdT hHCereOF3zewNhcNz+B2oDRvBB+g76HCDz1Pw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.113.148 with SMTP id a20mr4875978bkq.103.1289746640283; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:57:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.48.215 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:57:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <007301cb8405$5dc7a8e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> References: <4CDEC5B8.17075.79A05A@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <4CDF089E.4090604@gmx.de> <4CDFBCBE.5787.60D7DE@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <2BE70532063C4C12A0E3AD8515E27D57@White> <002d01cb83f5$f4842c00$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> <007301cb8405$5dc7a8e0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:57:20 +0000 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 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=0016e6d588d75828b10495048a51 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d262.1 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db40c4cdff9440f71 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --0016e6d588d75828b10495048a51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mal, As always, you paint a negative view of life on LF. 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 wonderful learning experience for me and the good old days are still very much here with plenty to explore and discover. Be happy - life is too short to be always miserable! 73s Roger G3XBM On 14 November 2010 14:08, mal hamilton wrote: > 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 attracting > 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 ----- > *From:* jrusgrove@comcast.net > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *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. > > 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 > ========== > > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 --0016e6d588d75828b10495048a51 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mal,

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

Yo= u may be right about LF activity levels, but it is for us all to enc= ourage others, not put them off, and there is a plac= e for CW, WSPR, QRSS and ROS etc on the LF bands.

Experimenting on MF, LF and VLF, albeit very simply, has been a wonder= ful learning experience for me and the good old days are still very much= here with plenty to explore and discover.=A0

Be happy - life is= too short to be always miserable!

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 14 Novembe= r 2010 14:08, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote:
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 active= 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=A0 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
=A0
=A0
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010= 12:17=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq...= .

Markus, Group
=A0
Since my name was mentioned I'l= l make a quick=20 post.=A0
=A0
We may have a chicken and egg situa= tion here. Up=20 until several years ago I=A0routinely monitored and reported=A0on EU=20 activity on LF ... that is until EU stations=A0moved en masse to the US= T/A=20 window. It is simply impossible to=A0receive weak signals from EU while= BIG=20 US stations=A0are on the air. One is reduced to=A0looking for crumbs=20 of=A0weak signals between long callsigns strings. Worse yet,=A0set up=20 for overnight captures because no US stations are active only to wake up= to a=20 screen full of=A0US stations that got a late start.=A0I gave=20 up.
=A0
Now there's talk of merging=A0t= he EU and US=20 500 kHz WSPR windows.=A0Providing=A0spots last winter, especially for=20 low power EU stations,=A0was an interesting and challenging pursuit. But= it=20 won't be=A0if the majority of WSPR time slots are clobbered by stron= g local=20 groundwave signals.
=A0
Don't change anything on my acc= ount ... there's=20 plenty of other interesting=A0things to do on VLF, LF and=20 MF!=A0
=A0
Jay=A0=A0
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 201= 0 6:17=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Eu QRSS freq.= ...

Dear Mike,
=A0
first of all, let me say that you= r signal has=20 never created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice= of=20 operating techniques to mitigate potential interference.=A0As far as I could see, there were only very=20 few=A0occasions, when=A0spectrograms in Holland and France=A0where=20 being desensitized=A0when=A0you and XGJ were on=20 simultaneously.=A0But on the other hand, I think I would have=20 a=A0problem if I lived much closer to you.
=A0
I= also completely=20 understand=A0your point about the lack of feedback from grabbers=20 operating in the designated Eu slot.=A0In the past, we=A0were=20 rewarded=A0by excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence.= In=20 my opinion, the point of the story is to motivate every LF grabber ope= rator=20 to include an=A0Eu slot as well.
<= /font>=A0
Regarding choice of frequency: If= I remember=20 right, we went from the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32,=A0because the= =20 latter=A0provided a larger gap between American Loran lines - which is= no=20 more an issue now. But recently,=A0CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0= has=20 been reactivated. How much does=A0it affect stateside reception on=20 136.32? If they continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to th= e=20 bottom end.=A0
=A0
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
=A0

Mike Dennison
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
shou= ld 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
are gr= abbers=20 in Alaska, Western Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but
not one co= vers=20 the 136.320kHz sub-band.

That sub-band was originally created= when=20 there were many Eu (mostly
UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports= from=20 the east coast of America -
=A0there were even several Canadians=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 few Eu= =20 stations interested in DX
working, and seemingly no east coast Ame= rican=20 stations routinely
monitoring.=A0

I try not to QRM those= Eu=20 stations who are monitoring for US and
Russian beacons. This is ac= hieved=20 by not beaconing every day, and by
not beaconing continuously (whi= ch is=20 why I synchronise each
transmission with the start of each hour).= My=20 frequency is much lower
than most US and Russian beacons. I have= also=20 announced that if my
transmissions cause anyone any problems, I wi= ll=20 close down. In
practice, unless the receiving station is within ab= out=20 150km of me
there is little chance of real QRM - last night EW6GB= was=20 fully
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 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.

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

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

<= /div>



--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/<= br>http://www.g3xbm.c= o.uk
http://www= .youtube.com/user/g3xbm
G3XBM=A0=A0 GQRP 1678=A0=A0=A0 ISWL G11088<= br> --0016e6d588d75828b10495048a51--