Message-ID: <50E86576.7020106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:40:06 +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: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
In-Reply-To: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------050903080001020208020109"
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.
--------------050903080001020208020109
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Chris,

Which kind of amateur radio activity did you plan to that time that 
became actually impossible due to the QRSS stations? Why were the QRSS 
stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And the NDBs with their 
carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRSS stations?

Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
> Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band?

It was me who started the trend to do QRSS-10 in that range.

The intention was to give QRSS stations a "playing field" which is 
outside the CW QSO range. There have been QRSS transmissions arround the 
lower end of the band, which caused interference to the CW stations. 
QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on MF, allows to study QSB phenomena and do 
some QRPP tests and so on...
A few minutes ago it was interesting to see the QSB delay between PA3CPM 
and PA3FNY here!

It is no problem to move that QRSS range but there should be a real 
reason. And the reason should be explained with some examples of actual 
amateur activity insead of theoretical considerations. BTW it was not my 
suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5 kHz ;-)


> There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this.
Was it QRSS or the NDB or maybe WSPR, which is just 500 Hz lower? I 
think it is not unusual to see strong signals on that band.

> 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.
CW is the only mode that is _actually practised _(on the band, not in 
email discussions!) _by a number of stations_ which requires EARS 
instead of a computer to decode the information. So this is a real 
reason to protect the CW region from other signals which would all cause 
interference to them.

> 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?
http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff

That's just my personal point of view. As said, the intention was to 
give QRSS stations a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the 
lower end is not further disturbed. After all i think we can all work 
together on that band without stress. At least if no one will come and 
say "but i want to have the upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC


> Vy 73,
> Chris, G4AYT.

--------------050903080001020208020109
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
 http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Chris, <br>
<br>
Which kind of amateur radio activity did you plan to that time that
became actually impossible due to the QRSS stations? Why were the QRSS
stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And the NDBs with their
carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRSS stations? <br>
<br>
Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
<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?</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It was me who started the trend to do QRSS-10 in that range. <br>
<br>
The intention was to give QRSS stations a "playing field" which is
outside the CW QSO range. There have been QRSS transmissions arround
the lower end of the band, which caused interference to the CW
stations. QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on MF, allows to study QSB
phenomena and do some QRPP tests and so on...<br>
A few minutes ago it was interesting to see the QSB delay between
PA3CPM and PA3FNY here!<br>
<br>
It is no problem to move that QRSS range but there should be a real
reason. And the reason should be explained with some examples of actual
amateur activity insead of theoretical considerations. BTW it was not
my suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5
kHz ;-) <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C"
 type="cite">
  <div><font face="Arial" size="2"> There are two extremely strong
signals there now as I write this. </font></div>
</blockquote>
Was it QRSS or the NDB or maybe WSPR, which is just 500 Hz lower? I
think it is not unusual to see strong signals on that band.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C"
 type="cite">
  <div><font face="Arial" size="2">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. </font></div>
</blockquote>
CW is the only mode that is <u>actually practised </u>(on the band,
not in email discussions!) <u>by a number of stations</u> which
requires EARS instead of a computer to decode the information. So this
is a real reason to protect the CW region from other signals which
would all cause interference to them.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C"
 type="cite">
  <div><font face="Arial" size="2">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>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff">http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff</a><br>
<br>
That's just my personal point of view. As said, the intention was to
give QRSS stations a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the
lower end is not further disturbed. After all i think we can all work
together on that band without stress. At least if no one will come and
say "but i want to have the upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)<br>
<br>
73, Stefan/DK7FC<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C"
 type="cite">
  <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Vy 73,</font></div>
  <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Chris, G4AYT.</font></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------050903080001020208020109--