Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 37FAF380000E4; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:23:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U4tSv-0001ks-Bg for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:30:37 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U4tSu-0001kj-KF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:30:36 +0000 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U4tSr-0002OG-PQ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:30:35 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1BDUWTt018348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:30:32 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id r1BDUWEa005606 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:30:32 +0100 Message-ID: <5118F273.2040106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:30:27 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= 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: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 Chris, Am 11.02.2013 11:15, schrieb Chris: > Hi Mal, > Re your comment:- > Those shouting most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never > heard on the bands. > Surely equal weight should be given to the opinions of those who just > listen or run QRP? I have been running 1W RF on the band since > January, probably well below your RX threshold, and working a couple > of 'locals' regularly. So my opinion doesn't count in your book? [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 350b42a0642244046701ed1a68bf48aa Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Bandplan or whatever Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080003040206000100020409" 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=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-sid: 3039ac1d60165118fed3218b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080003040206000100020409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Chris, Am 11.02.2013 11:15, schrieb Chris: > Hi Mal, > Re your comment:- > Those shouting most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never > heard on the bands. > Surely equal weight should be given to the opinions of those who just > listen or run QRP? I have been running 1W RF on the band since > January, probably well below your RX threshold, and working a couple > of 'locals' regularly. So my opinion doesn't count in your book? Of course your opinion counts, as well as the opinion of all active stations, of course including QRPP stations and listeners. But those who have the highest motivation to make band plans are either not active at all (on this band) or spent a few hours during the time the band was NEW. I know a few callsigns of those who want to set up a band plan in the background. Never heared them in the LF/MF scene! I asked them why _they_ want to make a band plan although they have never been active (RX or TX wise), but i got no answer! Something must be wrong there. See the useless ideas for the band plans on MF. Like "/472.000 - 472.150 CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated)/ " Questions: -Why is there the need to have a slot for CW beacons on MF? There is no CW beacon slot in a bandplan on any other band in the HF spectrum. -Is 150 Hz BW useful for CW beacons? Imagine there are 3 CW beacons in 150 Hz to the same time. How does it sound when you have a 500 Hz CW filter? -"/472.600 CW DX Calling/", "/474.750 CW Calling"/ Is it useful to have separated CW calling frequencies? What is DX on MF? Like on HF, i.e. intercontinental? Who will be able to radiate such a signal? -"/472.150 - 472.300 CW QRSS/" QRSS does not need 150 Hz of BW. Most grabber windows will not even cover that 150 Hz segment, except if QRSS-1 is meant. 50 Hz BW would be totally adequate. But this slot is much to close to the CW QSO slot. > Rik has come up with the most logical suggestion so far. We really do > need some sort of organisation on the band, all be it of the 'light > touch' variety. Agreed. But are there still any open questions? Which modes are done on MF, i mean REALLY DONE, not theoretically? That is CW, WSPR, QRSS/DFCW and maybe OPERA and some local AM. No need to regulate sporadic local AM or SSB experiments. And the CW activity zone is well known by any active CW station. If not (i.e. for a newcomer), there's not much trouble to turn over the 7 kHz BW to find an audible CW signal. The active people know since a long time that CW is done on the lower band edge, WSPR arround 475.7 kHz, Opera arround 478.5 kHz Just take a look at http://www.dxsummit.fi/CustomFilter.aspx?customCount=50&customRange=472 and all is clear about CW! And just take a look to http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/activity and all is clear about WSPR. > My feeling (which apparently probably doesn't count) is, modes with > long carriers should be near the band edges, ideally QRSS near the > bottom and others near the top. Filters easily resolve the issue of > QRSS being close to faster CW, as you, Mal, pointed out to me some > years ago. > Criticising suggestions is all very well, but it would be better if > such criticism was supported by reasoned argument or a better proposal. It counts! There have been several reasonable arguments regarding band plans on 630m in the past few weeks or months. As a summary, only from my point of view, the best conclusion ever was very simple: We can all co-exist without problems there! 73, Stefan/DK7FC > On another point, someone commented about the 'Subject' in e-mails to > this site. I entirely agree with what was said. Not only the mode > under discussion, but it has been confusing sometimes in the past when > the band is not specified either in the 'Subject', or even the content! > Vy 73, > Chris, G4AYT. --------------080003040206000100020409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Chris,

Am 11.02.2013 11:15, schrieb Chris:
Hi Mal,
Re your comment:-
Those shouting most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never heard on the bands.
Surely equal weight should be given to the opinions of those who just listen or run QRP? I have been running 1W RF on the band since January, probably well below your RX threshold, and working a couple of 'locals' regularly. So my opinion doesn't count in your book?

Of course your opinion counts, as well as the opinion of all active stations, of course including QRPP stations and listeners. But those who have the highest motivation to make band plans are either not active at all (on this band) or spent a few hours during the time the band was NEW. I know a few callsigns of those who want to set up a band plan in the background. Never heared them in the LF/MF scene! I asked them why they want to make a band plan although they have never been active (RX or TX wise), but i got no answer!
Something must be wrong there.

See the useless ideas for the band plans on MF. Like "472.000 - 472.150  CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated) "
Questions:
-Why is there the need to have a slot for CW beacons on MF? There is no CW beacon slot in a bandplan on any other band in the HF spectrum.
-Is 150 Hz BW useful for CW beacons? Imagine there are 3 CW beacons in 150 Hz to the same time. How does it sound when you have a 500 Hz CW filter?
-"472.600  CW DX Calling", "474.750 CW Calling"    Is it useful to have separated CW calling frequencies? What is DX on MF? Like on HF, i.e. intercontinental? Who will be able to radiate such a signal?
-"472.150 - 472.300  CW QRSS"  QRSS does not need 150 Hz of BW. Most grabber windows will not even cover that 150 Hz segment, except if QRSS-1 is meant. 50 Hz BW would be totally adequate.  But this slot is much to close to the CW QSO slot.

Rik has come up with the most logical suggestion so far. We really do need some sort of organisation on the band, all be it of the 'light touch' variety.
Agreed. But are there still any open questions? Which modes are done on MF, i mean REALLY DONE, not theoretically? That is CW, WSPR, QRSS/DFCW and maybe OPERA and some local AM. No need to regulate sporadic local AM or SSB experiments. And the CW activity zone is well known by any active CW station. If not (i.e. for a newcomer), there's not much trouble to turn over the 7 kHz BW to find an audible CW signal.

The active people know since a long time that CW is done on the lower band edge, WSPR arround 475.7 kHz, Opera arround 478.5 kHz
Just take a look at http://www.dxsummit.fi/CustomFilter.aspx?customCount=50&customRange=472 and all is clear about CW!
And just take a look to http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/activity and all is clear about WSPR.

My feeling (which apparently probably doesn't count) is, modes with long carriers should be near the band edges, ideally QRSS near the bottom and others near the top. Filters easily resolve the issue of QRSS being close to faster CW, as you, Mal, pointed out to me some years ago.
Criticising suggestions is all very well, but it would be better if such criticism was supported by reasoned argument or a better proposal.
It counts!

There have been several reasonable arguments regarding band plans on 630m in the past few weeks or months. As a summary, only from my point of view, the best conclusion ever was very simple: We can all co-exist without problems there!

73, Stefan/DK7FC

On another point, someone commented about the 'Subject' in e-mails to this site. I entirely agree with what was said. Not only the mode under discussion, but it has been confusing sometimes in the past when the band is not specified either in the 'Subject', or even the content!
Vy 73,
Chris, G4AYT.
--------------080003040206000100020409--