Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mh04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 984B6380000A3; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 05:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Trn0y-00047h-6o for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:59:36 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Trn0x-00047Y-BJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:59:35 +0000 Received: from nm1-vm0.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([212.82.108.94]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Trn0u-0000GK-LJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:59:34 +0000 Received: from [212.82.108.231] by nm1.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 09:59:11 -0000 Received: from [217.12.12.245] by tm4.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 09:59:11 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp816.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2013 09:59:11 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1357466351; bh=QAEtUL2JrrGf6Igq9VaW7p0W/MMfIy82R4mJ1QPtJHA=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=ONdH8MIXK5xvBgvfcSyiJJAp7hl7Yol2P3hx/ktMBwrkgwkTYS3rZ1mH4AwNjKsbPyLJ+ZUgHYRMvdAhNsgz8vL1OQAj90wabK5hiHkDOHRe3s/85L8VLKXn3yDNQEzooOIE7P45WF/O0AWznvDZo4vHc5H7D7r5A5f/gCgK6Yk= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 842314.61030.bm@smtp816.mail.ukl.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: KWmQHYkVM1lXmj_UgNM9pePNuGQdQqOtOQzZxZkTSuOT0M4 PSl4bVh8JQeld2eqLkIGyQrQ6.feQ4o1.22VlhguZZM1Mdz8rCX03bCFYRkc uTeOfHIiq7zrqsjY7lPMkjMi2n4vndUG4O03tOkMVe4xxRFda9QnvcGUT65F PjU9o_7qOwKytYM6pTZegpCv6KJ7dZp4oA7QcfWsQzf_Xb6SV7QSnfoxbix6 G6ZHa_kelddEK11fEF3c9LKG0fl6Wu47YnRM8ijqw8iXiARaSH6sdkJUBWfX HW9g4__DyMFStWQejVwVSKtBILX3KPEcAB1cgA_BWS4IL1L.3.JVcaKloqam J5tTHoSHpWuYmaYdd_sB4iFFIrpP3cBNrkIK66U1y1ZO3UrVjArW1cWLFjdz V.bGBIgVtE8IYP8VSUaIpRkqkA5qVqS9AikxIc3dJC26MYGxxCUAf4fu0732 mcpTe_H2modyWMPV9XOmWIGZKFPw82vWXjRoiIRfVWXLDVWrqZKML6pTXhqD xw7yRPGXxz8R3WbiougWaUgDWG7UtQ6nQ X-Yahoo-SMTP: .u8e2g.swBByWKjbpA3lR6Fw.2ZEQrJJpVsTSrpXLCffsPaCEMY- Received: from IBM7FFA209F07C (c.ashby435@31.51.40.235 with login) by smtp816.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 06 Jan 2013 01:59:11 -0800 PST Message-ID: From: "Chris" To: References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C> <50E86576.7020106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:59:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 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: Hi Stefan, I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense to have QRSS near the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with your suggestion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, filters easily take care of that one! There are also two edges of the band! I also heard the AM in the middle of the band late afternoon yesterday. It didn't cause a problem here with anything, again, I agree with Chris, XIZ. If anything, it was the other way round, the very strong QRSS carriers were QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are planning some QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as far as possible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do this. There will always be the odd rogue who goes totally over the top, there are amateurs near me who regularly and quite openly use powers well in excess of the legal limit on topband. That's life. Pete, FMT, I really think you have totally lost the plot now. I didn't realise how anti-RSGB you are, but maybe this is not the place to express such exaggerated and blatently absurd opinions? I joined the RSGB last year after several contributors on here suggested I was 'getting a free ride' at their expense. Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, JO01MI. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stefan Schäfer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 PM Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS [...] 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 [212.82.108.94 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Scan-Signature: eaf2c94dead786101818a7a2aa96a4c4 Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01CDEBF4.7C6761B0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mh04.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60d850e94b4a646c 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_0051_01CDEBF4.7C6761B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stefan, I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense to have QRSS near the band = edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with your suggestion that = QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, filters easily take = care of that one! There are also two edges of the band! I also heard the AM in the middle of the band late afternoon yesterday. = It didn't cause a problem here with anything, again, I agree with Chris, = XIZ. If anything, it was the other way round, the very strong QRSS = carriers were QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are = planning some QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as = far as possible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do this. There will always be the odd rogue who goes totally over the top, there = are amateurs near me who regularly and quite openly use powers well in = excess of the legal limit on topband. That's life. Pete, FMT, I really think you have totally lost the plot now. I didn't = realise how anti-RSGB you are, but maybe this is not the place to = express such exaggerated and blatently absurd opinions? I joined the = RSGB last year after several contributors on here suggested I was = 'getting a free ride' at their expense. Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, JO01MI. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Stefan Sch=E4fer=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 PM Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS Hi Chris,=20 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?=20 Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:=20 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.=20 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 = ;-)=20 There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this.=20 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.=20 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. ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CDEBF4.7C6761B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Stefan,
I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more = sense to have=20 QRSS near the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with = your=20 suggestion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, = filters=20 easily take care of that one! There are also two edges of the = band!
I also heard the AM in the middle of = the band late=20 afternoon yesterday. It didn't cause a problem here with anything, = again, I=20 agree with Chris, XIZ. If anything, it was the other way round, the very = strong=20 QRSS carriers were QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area = are=20 planning some QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as = far as=20 possible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do = this.
There will always be the odd rogue who = goes totally=20 over the top, there are amateurs near me who regularly and quite openly = use=20 powers well in excess of the legal limit on topband. That's = life.
Pete, FMT, I really think you have = totally lost the=20 plot now. I didn't realise how anti-RSGB you are, but maybe this is not = the=20 place to express such exaggerated and blatently absurd opinions? I = joined the=20 RSGB last year after several contributors on here suggested I was = 'getting=20 a free ride' at their expense.
Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable,=20 JO01MI.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Stefan = Sch=E4fer
Sent: Saturday, January 05, = 2013 5:40=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band = QRSS

Hi Chris,

Which kind of amateur radio activity = did you=20 plan to that time that became actually impossible due to the QRSS = stations?=20 Why were the QRSS stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And = the NDBs=20 with their carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRSS = stations?=20

Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:=20
Who started the trend to have QRSS = in the=20 middle of the 'new' band?

It was me who = started=20 the trend to do QRSS-10 in that range.

The intention was to = give QRSS=20 stations a "playing field" which is outside the CW QSO range. There = have been=20 QRSS transmissions arround the lower end of the band, which caused=20 interference to the CW stations. QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on MF, = allows to=20 study QSB phenomena and do some QRPP tests and so on...
A few = minutes ago=20 it was interesting to see the QSB delay between PA3CPM and PA3FNY=20 here!

It is no problem to move that QRSS range but there should = be a=20 real reason. And the reason should be explained with some examples of = actual=20 amateur activity insead of theoretical considerations. BTW it was not = my=20 suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5 kHz = ;-)=20


There are two extremely strong = signals there=20 now as I write this.
Was it QRSS or the = NDB or maybe=20 WSPR, which is just 500 Hz lower? I think it is not unusual to see = strong=20 signals on that band.

I would have thought any mode that = requires=20 long plain carriers would be better suited to near the band=20 edges.
Three German operators suggested a = band plan=20 during late September, in which QRSS was near the bottom of the = band.=20
CW is the only mode that is actually = practised=20 (on the band, not in email discussions!) by a number of = stations=20 which requires EARS instead of a computer to decode the information. = So this=20 is a real reason to protect the CW region from other signals which = would all=20 cause interference to them.

As far as I remember this plan was = met with=20 some hostility.
It has been suggested that people = will not=20 stick to a band plan. I find this hard to believe, particularly in = respect=20 of QRSS, if they want their signals to be found.
Another problem I would suggest, is = just how=20 many know how to measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed = several=20 contributors to this reflector refer to ERP.
Food for = thought?
http://www.strobbe.o= rg/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff

That's=20 just my personal point of view. As said, the intention was to give = QRSS=20 stations a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the lower end is = not=20 further disturbed. After all i think we can all work together on that = band=20 without stress. At least if no one will come and say "but i want to = have the=20 upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)

73, = Stefan/DK7FC


Vy 73,
Chris,=20 G4AYT.
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CDEBF4.7C6761B0--