Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id EA1EC38000081; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 03:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U466G-0004OX-5x for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:47:56 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U466F-0004OO-DG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:47:55 +0000 Received: from nm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([212.82.108.233]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U466D-0008Jt-3o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:47:54 +0000 Received: from [212.82.108.229] by nm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2013 08:47:32 -0000 Received: from [46.228.39.170] by tm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2013 08:47:32 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp111.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2013 08:47:32 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1360399652; bh=vM9grIJ3Z8j5lsHvXCcAEA7aQoHuzktDC6Vy8KGtwco=; 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=YDYkP24RPupFqFwtUqVPdnQV7/TfO/5tvnMXGCFH1VVwmXQYJW0R4Szez0BGfGXmCp9ZX6fMmEvw9iIgWTOKZy0wR5cuFCqBjMbeQj/xGIl6UsBtZbdQIf+hoSLYFo9BBT0UtCA3Ak79OIYQ/+vBWzyViA2Wfd9Qksj4GEDWsFk= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 182139.27853.bm@smtp111.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: _xGOdssVM1mmK5RS569IvqA3ZqEvk8a.1xNIGMQrYl7H76E 73sbx6g_canr6PQ5koZLpy0.yMOHFfn4a345OvwQwWyA7gla6YQCMKV_G1WS SByCaD7T68GFWNxSK7aB.EmejZrrUpxRhn.6iO6biaWbY4H02x_e27843skT Tg7ayv_OyWm8vPLGltztKrgdpusVmACbr0mjXHppii9eqvabmCpVuNPDZnPv DJo2hYUWSmbsTc7T5VSZlFaZZa2nekRsOebr5gfDEKQKTNadC9C7eZEBoEuF c3Ouu5IE6X5AoY4lkL8hrJeawFzj11_JOUduyiyz5Qtl3NGAeaLhgAX8PmCa NIzlTOc_XEk9t96zkZV3F7EezWn0RLcPD7y7dYhF_zo_4WnX5lFj_YjDVaDJ kkmRBI6EWZthmgJMclmcED0oxSQsTOBmAg5Tf2XyP34yAUnfVtDp2RdJwLan UYnDGmYzkvsFG X-Yahoo-SMTP: .u8e2g.swBByWKjbpA3lR6Fw.2ZEQrJJpVsTSrpXLCffsPaCEMY- Received: from IBM7FFA209F07C (c.ashby435@86.155.203.41 with login) by smtp111.bt.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 09 Feb 2013 08:47:32 +0000 UTC Message-ID: From: "Chris" To: References: <33a081ba8fa54d99adcf8022fbb0c07b@kabelmail.de> <981c2fdebe29e7ff448a2bfb7bf53238@sensemail.ch> <1360312446.81440.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <51151485.8000602@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<25ABBD1601E44E7F9331F06E2022921D@IBM7FFA209F07C> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6F9C3@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:47:34 -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: Rik - YES, couldn't agree more. Chris, G4AYT. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rik Strobbe To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:12 PM Subject: LF: RE: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan [...] 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 [212.82.108.233 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: d315c81827f71be07030d900195100c1 Subject: LF: Re: RE: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE06A2.1AE64410" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_30_40,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-dd02.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d408e51160d9d67e3 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_0029_01CE06A2.1AE64410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rik - YES, couldn't agree more. Chris, G4AYT. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rik Strobbe=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:12 PM Subject: LF: RE: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan 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 welcome an agreement on (1) a section for individual beacons, and = (2) a defined 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 calling frequency so high though. I am surprised CW activity hasn't taken off to a larger extent though, = I regularly 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=20 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 the 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 digimodes. This may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after = considering experiences. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE06A2.1AE64410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rik - YES, couldn't agree = more.
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Rik Strobbe
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 = 9:12=20 PM
Subject: LF: RE: NRRL proposal = for a 630m=20 Band Plan

Hello Chris,

 

the "where to=20 = monitor" problem can be solved by agreeing on some=  centre=20 of activity frequencies for=20 CW, QRSS etc.

This is far less rigid<= A> than=20 a band plan.

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - = OR7T

 

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

Personally I don't think it's all bad = in a=20 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=20 haven't a clue where exactly to monitor. The idea of moving QRSS away = from the=20 centre of the band (but even nearer the bottom) is preferable. I am = sure other=20 mode enthusiasts would find it more desirable/helpful to know where to = listen.=20 Not so sure about the CW calling frequency so high = though.
I am surprised CW activity hasn't = taken off to a=20 larger extent though, I regularly hear strong stations calling CQ over = and=20 over, getting no replies. Not very encouraging.
Chris, G4AYT.
From: "traumwandler@sensemail.ch" "=20 = target=3D_blank><traumwandler@sensemail.ch>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Friday, 8 February = 2013,=20 8:24
Subject: = LF: NRRL=20 proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Are you aware = of this=20 proposal?
What do you think about it?
73 de Toni,=20 HB9ASB


Recommendation
From the viewpoints of NRRL = we would=20 (at the time being) like to present the
following proposal = for a 630=20 m IARU Region 1 bandplan:
472 - 479 kHz (630 m)
472 - 475=20 kHz  CW only =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz
    = 472.000 -=20 472.150  CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated)
  =  =20 472.150 - 472.300  CW QRSS
    472.600  =  =20                 CW DX=20 Calling
    474.750        =  =20           CW Calling
475 - 479 = kHz  CW=20 + digimodes =96 maximum bandwidth 500 Hz
Contests should be = discouraged=20 in this very narrow 630 m band where radio
amateurs are = secondary=20 users.
Comment:
NRRL feels that it will be premature to = further=20 subdivide different digimodes. This
may be better to do at = the next=20 conference, if necessary, after=20 = considering
experiences.








------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE06A2.1AE64410--