Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-md05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 113CA38000099; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:24:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TrX5U-0006Ia-Th for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:59:12 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TrX5U-0006IR-F1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:59:12 +0000 Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TrX5S-0005GH-5v for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:59:11 +0000 Received: from aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20130105165849.LXUR10247.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:58:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.2] (really [82.5.252.56]) by aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20130105165849.OSW12753.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.2.2]> for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:58:49 +0000 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:58:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <50E85BC5.17940.19178EA@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-reply-to: References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>, X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) Content-description: Mail message body X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=GaEGOwq9FwezmTggA+b6yC6zDZF2HYaK6RN/tSqdnVA= c=1 sm=0 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=PPwhodlBAAAA:8 a=HmCT5iXHAAAA:8 a=fnYqA7hvAAAA:8 a=j6Q1dnSHAAAA:8 a=8P0jffWtAAAA:20 a=mR2slA2DAAAA:8 a=OYT_YWj3a7Smw5E7mzwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Nr7Pmq0tdocA:10 a=gA6IeH5FQcgA:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: There are several issues here: (1) We have a very narrow band, which exhibits much stronger local and DX signals than the 136kHz band did. Therefore, there should be a combination of self discipline and planning. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [81.103.221.47 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 9d01e9df836df8dd3868645661e1c1f7 Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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: 3039ac1d605950e86fdf06b4 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none There are several issues here: (1) We have a very narrow band, which exhibits much stronger local and DX signals than the 136kHz band did. Therefore, there should be a combination of self discipline and planning. (2) It makes sense to have at least an idea of where particular modes can be found. If a signal other than 'normal' CW is heard, it should be obvious (from its approximate frequency) what type of software to use to decode it. (3) We have quite an organised community in this and the Yahoo groups, so changes to any centre of activity can easily be discussed and propagated. On a personal note, I think QRSS works better than many modes very close to a band edge because of its tiny bandwidth and need for very accurate tuning. And just as annoying as QRSS in the middle of the band are CW QSOs taking place very close to datacomms activity. Mike, G3XDV (temporarily QRT on transmit but monitoring - see http://g3xdv.blogspot.com ) > Just tell me where to operate CW, QRSS, WSPR and JT9 etc and I will > willingly follow any gentleman's agreement or more formal plan. > > Personally I think a "light touch" outline bandplan IS now needed. No > rules, just a sensible way of organising that will maximise everyone's > enjoyment of their chosen modes with minimal interference to other > amateurs and to NDBs. People do not have to rigidly follow it, but it > would benefit all if we did. > > 73s > Roger G3XBM > > > On 5 January 2013 14:04, Chris wrote: > > > ** > > 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. > > > > > > -- > http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ > http://www.g3xbm.co.uk > https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ > http://qss2.blogspot.com/ >