Message-ID: <4FD10C80.4090509@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:18:08 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= <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: <CAHAQVWPELGnAZKqF3T7AaYo7pgd4GCTZO-L5iTCU3p3vYM+AEw@mail.gmail.com> <00ad01cd424c$0138a690$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <F17EE8B7-0493-4C2F-890F-DD9117273D9E@gmail.com> <00d301cd4255$b6428ac0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <636F5742-6949-4616-9CFD-3FCF99B4506A@gmail.com> <00f301cd4263$4ce62880$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4FCCD78A.6030302@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206062141580.31712@plato.ucs.mun.ca> <4FD08634.8010402@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <000b01cd449e$8ed026a0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <989268713.594928.1339069782716.JavaMail.www@wwinf8316> <4FD0999E.3080206@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <1608727203.579919.1339071424127.JavaMail.www@wwinf8307> <4FD09E40.2050308@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <1681559339.753475.1339087873235.JavaMail.www@wwinf8219>
In-Reply-To: <1681559339.753475.1339087873235.JavaMail.www@wwinf8219>
Subject: Re: LF: MF Allocation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: 3039ac1d40924fd10d3177f9
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Ben,

Am 07.06.2012 18:51, schrieb manginbenoit.pro:
> This is the eternal question...
>
> QRSS is quite easier and most probably the only solution for most of 
> us BUT: We are a quite a large lot to look 
> forward "operator-hands-and-ears" CW activity.
>
> If 137 was more populated, maybe wouldn't it be so hard to QSO in 
> regular CW, even with veeeeeeeery low ERPs.
Well there are OMs who say i have no ears or so but in fact i think i'm 
missing 3 dB sensitivity as a maximum. With special directional receive 
antennas like a K9AY some dBs more may be gained but most OMs suffer 
from a relatively high man made noise level and we seem to have 
significantly higher QRN levels compared to the UK, due to local 
thunderstorms.
There are not many stations which i heared in real CW. These are DF6NM, 
M0BMU, G3KEV, DL2HRE, HB9ASB and DD7PC. Either they are very strong 
(close to 1W ERP or some dB stronger) or they are local.
To receive a LF station in real CW, enough for a QSO where you get say 
80% copy at 60 BPM, the signal needs to be 30 dB S/N in QRSS-3, which is 
very much! So for QRSS-3, the signal can be 100x weaker!

Many OMs say that the LF noise floor increased by a few dB during the 
last years, due to the higher number of electronic stuff like energy 
saving lamps, switch mode power supplys, solar generator inverters, 
plasma TVs and so on. This may make CW even a bit harder than in "the 
good old days", the first years of the 137 kHz band...
I also started on LF in winther 2003, for about a half year. I got easy 
copy of OH1TN, F6BWO and other stations. Actually i think there would be 
better chances for CW. But, these days, who is able and willing to do a 
real CW QSO that takes a bit longer than "UR 599 in JN49 = 73 CU SK". If 
there are 10 stations in your radius who are willing to give you one QSO 
per year which takes 1 or 2 minutes, would you want to do the effort to 
call CQ CQ CQ all the days?

>
> That should be peanuts for you Stefan, once you get on the air another 
> monstrous signal.
I hope we can do a bit more with 1 W ERP on MF. I remember CW QSO to 
Hamburg (abt 500 km) on 40m where i had 100 mW TX power. That was 
perfect! If MF behaves about similar we may have good chances to do a 
bit more even with low power. Maybe, if the band becomes more populated 
than 137 kHz, this may even have a good effect for 137 kHz, if some 
become motivated to try the real challenge :-)

>
> On MF, the problem is similar, although antenna efficiency is greater, 
> and CW should be easier.
> Passionned with 160 meters, I would also focus on CW for MF 630 
> meters, with probably a bit of slow CW beaconing or QSO, but just for 
> fun. The no-computer approach is something of a challenge.
>
> Remember, CW is "Man versus Machine !!!".
Which machine? :-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC