Message-ID: <50E8377A.6000404@freenet.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:23:54 +0100
From: wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
In-Reply-To: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070603060801020100090203"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070603060801020100090203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Chris,

IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions at 
the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section without 
strong NDBs.
Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of the 
band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the band, where 
the risk of deafening the receiver in the neighbourhood is as low as 
possible. Problem with this for TA enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" 
is used on both sides of the atlantic, one would have to agree on time 
slotted transmissions but it's questionable if everyone would stick to 
the scheme (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter).

73,
   Wolf DL4YHF .


Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
> Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? 
> There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this. I 
> would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers would be 
> better suited to near the band edges.
> Three German operators suggested a band plan during late September, in 
> which QRSS was near the bottom of the band. As far as I remember this 
> plan was met with some hostility.
> It has been suggested that people will not stick to a band plan. I 
> find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of QRSS, if they 
> want their signals to be found.
> Another problem I would suggest, is just how many know how to 
> measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed several contributors to 
> this reflector refer to ERP.
> Food for thought?
> Vy 73,
> Chris, G4AYT.


--------------070603060801020100090203
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Chris,<br>
      <br>
      IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions
      at the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section
      without strong NDBs.<br>
      Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of
      the band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the
      band, where the risk of deafening the receiver in the
      neighbourhood is as low as possible. Problem with this for TA
      enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" is used on both sides of the
      atlantic, one would have to agree on time slotted transmissions
      but it's questionable if everyone would stick to the scheme
      (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter).<br>
      <br>
      73,<br>
      &nbsp; Wolf DL4YHF .<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C"
      type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
        http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19393">
      <style></style>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Who started the trend to have
          QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? There are two extremely
          strong signals there now as I write this. I would have thought
          any mode that requires long plain carriers would be better
          suited to near the band edges.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Three German operators suggested
          a band plan during late September, in which QRSS was near the
          bottom of the band. As far as I remember this plan was met
          with some hostility.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">It has been suggested that people
          will not stick to a band plan. I find this hard to believe,
          particularly in respect of QRSS, if they want their signals to
          be found.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Another problem I would suggest,
          is just how many know how to measure/calculate their EIRP? I
          have noticed several contributors to this reflector refer to
          ERP.</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Food for thought?</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Vy 73,</font></div>
      <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Chris, G4AYT.</font></div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------070603060801020100090203--