Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 82015380000B8; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U3vFx-0002Dx-Pk for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:13:13 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U3vFx-0002Dm-7f for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:13:13 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.129] helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U3vFs-0005w2-Gd for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:13:12 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: A20761380F5.A2F7D X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20761380F5 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:12:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB2.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub2.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A12420049 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:12:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::312b:f3bc:9c4:4ebb]) by ICTS-S-HUB2.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::8559:ca7c:e195:e15d%26]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:12:42 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan Thread-Index: AQHOBjcEgHwf7fhBs0q2QcKGK11/CZhwdP+9 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:12:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <33a081ba8fa54d99adcf8022fbb0c07b@kabelmail.de> <981c2fdebe29e7ff448a2bfb7bf53238@sensemail.ch> <1360312446.81440.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51151485.8000602@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<25ABBD1601E44E7F9331F06E2022921D@IBM7FFA209F07C> In-Reply-To: <25ABBD1601E44E7F9331F06E2022921D@IBM7FFA209F07C> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.13] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.129 (rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Hello Chris, the "where to monitor" problem can be solved by agreeing on some centre of activity frequencies for CW, QRSS etc. This is far less rigid than a band plan. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.58.240.129 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: 913d7a7c91a460d176c89ad756da16f9 Subject: LF: RE: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3ICTSSMBX5lunaku_" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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: 3039ac1d600a51156aa82cad X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Chris, the "where to monitor" problem can be solved by agreeing on some centre of = activity frequencies for CW, QRSS etc. This is far less rigid than a band plan. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= ] namens Chris [c.ashby435@btinternet.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 8 februari 2013 20:57 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan Personally I don't think it's all bad in a limited sort of way. I would wel= come an agreement on (1) a section for individual beacons, and (2) a define= d section for QRSS. At the moment I haven't a clue where exactly to monitor= . The idea of moving QRSS away from the centre of the band (but even nearer= the bottom) is preferable. I am sure other mode enthusiasts would find it = more desirable/helpful to know where to listen. Not so sure about the CW ca= lling frequency so high though. I am surprised CW activity hasn't taken off to a larger extent though, I re= gularly hear strong stations calling CQ over and over, getting no replies. = Not very encouraging. Chris, G4AYT. From: "traumwandler@sensemail.ch" > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 8:24 Subject: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan Are you aware of this proposal? What do you think about it? 73 de Toni, HB9ASB Recommendation >From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the time being) like to present th= e following proposal for a 630 m IARU Region 1 bandplan: 472 - 479 kHz (630 m) 472 - 475 kHz CW only =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz 472.000 - 472.150 CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated) 472.150 - 472.300 CW QRSS 472.600 CW DX Calling 474.750 CW Calling 475 - 479 kHz CW + digimodes =96 maximum bandwidth 500 Hz Contests should be discouraged in this very narrow 630 m band where radio amateurs are secondary users. Comment: NRRL feels that it will be premature to further subdivide different digimod= es. This may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after considering experiences. --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3ICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Chris,=

 

the "where to monitor" problem=  can be solved by = agreeing on some centre of = activity frequencies for CW, QRS= S etc.

This is far=  less rigid than a band plan.

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [o= wner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Chris [c.ashby435@btinternet.com]=
Verzonden: vrijdag 8 februari 2013 20:57
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Personally I don't think it's all bad = in a limited sort of way. I would welcome an agreement on (1) a section for= individual beacons, and (2) a defined section for QRSS. At the moment I ha= ven't a clue where exactly to monitor. The idea of moving QRSS away from the centre of the band (but even nearer = the bottom) is preferable. I am sure other mode enthusiasts would find it m= ore desirable/helpful to know where to listen. Not so sure about the CW cal= ling frequency so high though.
I am surprised CW activity hasn't take= n off to a larger extent though, I regularly hear strong stations calling C= Q over and over, getting no replies. Not very encouraging.
Chris, G4AYT.
From: "traumwandler@sensemail.ch" <traumwandler@sensemail.ch>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Friday, 8 February 20= 13, 8:24
Subject: LF: NRRL proposal = for a 630m Band Plan

Are you aware of this proposal?
What do you think about it?
73 de Toni, HB9ASB


Recommendation
>From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the time being) like to present th= e
following proposal for a 630 m IARU Region 1 bandplan:
472 - 479 kHz (630 m)
472 - 475 kHz  CW only =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz
    472.000 - 472.150  CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated)     472.150 - 472.300  CW QRSS
    472.600               = ;     CW DX Calling
    474.750               = ;     CW Calling
475 - 479 kHz  CW + digimodes =96 maximum bandwidth 500 Hz
Contests should be discouraged in this very narrow 630 m band where radio amateurs are secondary users.
Comment:
NRRL feels that it will be premature to further subdivide different digimod= es. This
may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after considering=
experiences.








--_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3ICTSSMBX5lunaku_--