Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D83D5380000B8; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr57L-0001mf-80 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:07:15 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr57K-0001mP-Eo for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:07:14 +0000 Received: from smtpout1.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.29] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tr57H-0007uO-Qs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:07:13 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.8.5]) by mwinf5d11 with ME id jn6n1k00R06WpAS03n6npL; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:06:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:06:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 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: In that short SSB test , it was quit evident that the propagation characteristics of the band , assumedly in terms of ground wave are actually quite unique and offer very good short to medium range Running 100 watts to a 40 x 70- ft inv L on 1.8 MHz would not at 1300z be received at S9 at a range of 100 miles , or at 25 for that matter , [...] 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 [80.12.242.29 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: a7057be409d35b5f2297c3c8c9fbcb9e Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0047_01CDEA6B.969A5770" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_70_80, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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: 3039ac1d404950e6b822710f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CDEA6B.969A5770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In that short SSB test , it was quit evident that the = propagation characteristics of the band , assumedly in terms of = ground wave are actually quite unique and offer very good = short to medium range=20 Running 100 watts to a 40 x 70- ft inv L on 1.8 MHz would not = at 1300z be received at S9 at a range of 100 miles , or at = 25 for that matter ,=20 In this context , it would appear that , though technically = challenging ( at the moment) ssb operations on MF are quite = possible and effective , as would any other audio b/w mode , = noting the power / bandwidth distribution being very low compared = to single carrier modes , 100 watts produced quite acceptable = results =20 As for lunacy well that's a matter of opinion , there are very = few that actually have a certificate to prove there sane , I = did note the band appeared to of been released at a full moon , = coincidence of course ! G.. =20 From: Chris=20 Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:49 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Hi Colin, Not too sure what you're getting at. We all have our individual = interests. I hope you're not suggesting the new band should only be used = by obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts? Chris, G4AYT. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: M5FRA - Colin=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:24 AM Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Just a thought.....when it gets totally washed out with SSB all 24 = hours how are you going to clean it out? People in general dont follow = gentlemen's agreements they were not party too.....and "it doesnt say I = cant in the licence".=20 I fear that, though what you suggest would work, it might encourage = mayhem. I agree with Alan. What is wrong with top band for local chats? Or the = acres of unused space on 2m or 70cms? To consider using any form of SSB = on 630m just because it might be technically feasible if sheer lunacy. = IMHO it would kill the band for other modes and the potential for QRM to = other users will be high. As an ex G8 who learned Morse in spite of a = chronic medical condition I would say just get on a do it. The rewards = are well worth the effort. Or maybe effort is a dirty word? Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA m5fra.org.uk ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CDEA6B.969A5770 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In that  short SSB   test  , it = was=20 quit  evident  that  the  propagation =20 characteristics  of the   band , assumedly in  = terms =20 of  ground  wave  are  actually  = quite  =20 unique  and offer   very  good  short  = to =20 medium   range 
 
Running  100  watts  to  = a  40 x=20 70- ft  inv L on 1.8 MHz  would  not  at =20 1300z   be received  at  S9  at  a = range =20 of  100  miles , or  at  25  for  = that =20 matter , 
 
In this  context , it  would appear = that  ,=20 though  technically challenging   ( at the  = moment) =20 ssb  operations  on  MF are  quite  = possible =20 and  effective , as would any  other   audio  = b/w =20 mode , noting  the  power / bandwidth  distribution = being =20 very  low  compared to  single  carrier  modes = , 100=20 watts  produced  quite  acceptable   = results =20
 
As for  lunacy  well  = that's  a =20 matter of  opinion  , there  are  very  = few =20 that  actually  have a  certificate  to  prove = there=20   sane  , I did  note the band  appeared to = of =20 been  released  at  a  full  moon  , = coincidence=20 of  course !
 
G..
 
       =
 

From: Chris
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:49 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band = ?

Hi Colin,
Not too sure what you're getting at. We = all have=20 our individual interests. I hope you're not suggesting the new band = should only=20 be used by obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts?
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 M5FRA - Colin
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 = 8:24=20 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local = SSB chat=20 band ?

Just a thought.....when it gets totally washed out with = SSB all 24=20 hours how are you going to clean it out? People in general dont follow = gentlemen's agreements they were not party too.....and "it doesnt say = I cant=20 in the licence".
I fear that, though = what you=20 suggest would work, it might encourage = mayhem.

I agree with Alan. What is wrong with top band for local chats? = Or the=20 acres of unused space on 2m or 70cms? To consider using any form = of SSB=20 on 630m just because it might be technically feasible if sheer lunacy. = IMHO it=20 would kill the band for other modes and the potential for QRM to other = users=20 will be high.  As an ex G8 who learned Morse in spite of a = chronic=20 medical condition I would say just get on a do it. The rewards are = well worth=20 the effort. Or maybe effort is a dirty word?
 
Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA
 
m5fra.org.uk

------=_NextPart_000_0047_01CDEA6B.969A5770--