Message-ID: <4F64F82E.4000000@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:46:38 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4F647735.3372.5358BB@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F647735.3372.5358BB@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: LF: Opera will QRM 137k QRSS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60174f64f8b52695
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Mike,

I agree with you.
The band plan for LF is well known and such an efficient mode should 
focus on the band below 137.6 kHz. I saw opera (?) traces on my grabber 
as well and didn't know who it was. That could be iritating to others 
who struggle to identify a QRSS call out of the noise.
I would vote to extend the digimode band rather to 137.4 instead, if 200 
Hz aren't sufficient for those super efficient QRSS and CW replacement 
modes.

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 17.03.2012 12:36, schrieb Mike Dennison:
> Some of you may have missed my last post on this subject because it
> had 'Opera' in the title and you thought it didn't concern you. But
> it does.
>
> The Opera data mode evolves almost daily and is still in its Beta
> stage. It recommends operating frequencies, and indeed won't work
> outside these frequencies without mis-using it. The early versions
> recommended 137.3 to 137.5kHz for Opera 8 and 137.5 to 137.6kHz for
> the slower Opera 32, both beacon only. So far, so good.
>
> Just over a week ago, version 1.3.3 introduced a new 'QSO mode' and
> recommended 137.4 to 137.6 for this activity. It then moved Op8
> beacons to 137.6-137.8kHz. My last post on this subject protested in
> strong terms at this flagrant disregard for long-standing
> bandplanning. In particular it would have caused interference to the
> 137.777kHz America-Europe DX watering hole.
>
> I have been away for a week and have downloaded Opera version 1.3.9
> (I did say it evolved daily) and this has improved the bandplanning,
> probably thanks to some members of  this group who are closer to the
> Opera team than I am.The threat to the DX wateringhole has gone but
> the encroachment on the QRSS window is still there.
>
> The new frequencies are: 137.5 to 137.6kHz for Op32 and 137.6 to
> 137.7kHz for Op8. The 'QSO mode' seems to have been dropped on this
> band.
>
> This still means that Opera 8 beacons will occupy the area between
> 137.65 and 137.70 which has for many years been used for QRSS 3 and
> 10 QSOs, including the centre frequency (137.70) itself.
>
> Whilst Opera may be regarded as machine generated/read QRSS and
> therefore a good bedfellow for QRSS, it uses a different (non-Morse)
> coding. Therefore an Opera user will not be able to read QRSS (and
> won't even know it is there it if he turns off the resource-hungry
> waterfall display) and the QRSS user will struggle to read what he
> thinks is a weak QRSS station, but will in fact be Opera.
>
> It could be argued that QRSS operators could use 137.70 to 136.75kHz,
> but this disregards the substantial QRM from DCF39 sidebands which
> affect all of western Europe, especially Germany. In any case, why
> should they have to halve the available slot?
>
> However, much more to the point, bandplanning on this band has been
> the subject of considerable discussion on this group right from the
> very start, and has evolved to suit all concerned. By contrast, the
> Opera team appear to have made arbitrary decisions based perhaps on a
> poll of a handful of keen Opera fans without any consultation with
> users of other, long-standing modes.
>
> When Opera first came out, I was accused of old-fashioned thinking
> when I referrred to local adjacent channel QRM. If Opera is so
> frequency-efficient, why does it need 200Hz when QRSS3/10 has got by
> with 80-100Hz for years?
>
> Lastly, I am not anti-Opera. Until a week ago I used it every day, on
> both modes and regard it as a useful tool. But it must be compatible
> with users of other, well-established, modes.
>
> Does anyone else feel as angry I do about a software writer dictating
> our bandplans?
>
> Mike, G3XDV
> ==========
>
>