Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=3 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_BACKHAIR_8,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20,HTML_TINY_FONT, SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id u2LA2AAF000327 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:02:10 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ahwXX-0007jR-9e for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:54:23 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ahwXW-0007jI-RV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:54:22 +0000 Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ahwXT-00078I-OO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:54:21 +0000 Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e6so208463036vkh.2 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 02:54:19 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=mx9Z2tGoKlGTvHEQsGi22QcA+d00e647nbGcNNhhVsc=; b=0V0dlXbMe2B7T+ylTcDiq4Y7QgBtKEiH5stmAiaT+sIoj64cSHZzQaFBxjGX/F3ile H5JMJSRuwtpGa83S4eK7X+99xewNT+ZCPNjJubxvT/5JUmjGGJYpuy2FsRyAmAqXiLJr sFprj8DC7cAlWNyHuGigveLHoAWvcpFfSKlZWA2FlI0Ub1Bpzli+rLTf7CqexMYUjg2c 9OHe9jKf4NpykIaFH3vzi6On2w5t9RG+F0OYupil8UJXIfIMIROYx247qzSZPZB93vy3 nS3jcOXySvU/WnVCw8vAAHVCOx0oruw1jNqbUhDPMYmvpQzgwyZTz9DOCAqF3frcWRgc qR8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=mx9Z2tGoKlGTvHEQsGi22QcA+d00e647nbGcNNhhVsc=; b=O9YZKC6CCqgfhVYFgaNpyo8iyIPzJY76mgXg7BVHLmiLh+hO3+NzpJTM7o7f8Ydu+v deOBeS3lLqkfCl028jI+5/8vUEgBPqahzV9sO37QcoE4ddivq0cvPTG8jv0Lg65Ck221 R6MPjTwT/3hLtCWEEL5BrVY7tuOe8n6AMX7wy7dY2/IZUoDZrbPvJAhWOoipT8YukkOA 3kY0q9SWVCS6VxYnGRLA1aMbMKZXEOHvMZo6cleAYueLlNJ4QYGp+y7w/qOoS5noYjb4 gSqakltGeNOizynjWed1RJLME+Ihz16jYcx9Sjl2wQBEU0l9WwxXb5z2LVCaD2/gNTvs 6uJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKHVH851HhSjmPsuNkWxtUXWC3k1Q9tSMUw2CWbasmHwl+PcLGH2BOn9pwON5AZCFrLNpkth4gDO86+ow== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.2.231 with SMTP id 94mr1396539uah.106.1458554057568; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 02:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.32.198 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 02:54:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: From: Andy Talbot To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Cc: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" X-Scan-Signature: b3b0f15d0cbaee08765b7bacd0352512 Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d18d67cb9f6052e8c14b6 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7442 --001a113d18d67cb9f6052e8c14b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The band is wide enough to support beacons, and narrow beacons offer an awful lot more in terms of propagation and band monitoring than the wideband non-stable transmissions that NDBs offer. However, I do think 200Hz is too wide , that WILl encourage trivial non scientific types of beacons - like normal CW. And that really IS served by NDBs I suggest specifying a limit of 50Hz bandwidth for any beacon in that band, which will preclude most trivial designs and force anyone wanting to do a fast CW one to "do it properly" It is, however, more than adequate bandwidth for QRSS, WSPR and JT9 waveforms. There's plenty of room on the band for normal QRSS Andy G4JNT On 21 March 2016 at 09:48, Rik Strobbe rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be [rsgb_lf_group] wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna, 16-17 April 2016) there > is a proposal that concerns the 630 m band: > > > > *It is recommended that beacons will be accepted in the plan of usage of > the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m) in addition to the Recommendation > VA14_C4_REC_02: 476 - 477 kHz beacons =E2=80=93 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz= . Maximum > power output 1 W EIRP. Beacon proposals should adhere > to beacon recommendations in the IARU Region 1 HF Managers' Handbook, > and should be approved by the IARU Region 1 Beacon Coordinator* > (introduced by NRRL) > > > > Besides the fact that I am not a fan of the urge to put everything into > strict rules and I have doubts about the usefulness of beacons (there > are dozens of NDB's in and near the 630 m band), I do fear that an > "official" beacon band might attract people or clubs to put up a nice > "tech project" and leave us with the QRM. > > The targeted range (476-477 kHz) is de facto used for QRSS, a some > "wideband" CW beacons can cause a lot of harm. > > > > I wonder if NRRL consulted the few Norwegian hams that are active on 630 > m and if other in societies the band users were asked for advice? > > > > 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: Rik Strobbe > ------------------------------ > Reply via web post > > =E2=80=A2 Reply to sender > > =E2=80=A2 Reply to group > > =E2=80=A2 Start a new topic > > =E2=80=A2 Messages in this topic > > (6) > Visit Your Group > > > - New Members > > 1 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > > =E2=80=A2 Privacy =E2=80=A2 > Unsubscribe > =E2= =80=A2 Terms > of Use > > . > > __,_._,___ > --001a113d18d67cb9f6052e8c14b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The band is wide enough to support beacons, and narro= w beacons offer an awful lot more in terms of propagation and band monitori= ng=C2=A0than the wideband non-stable transmissions that NDBs offer.

However, I do think 200Hz is too wide , that WILl encoura= ge trivial non scientific types of beacons - like normal CW.=C2=A0 And that= really IS served by NDBs

I suggest specifying a l= imit of 50Hz bandwidth for any beacon in that band, which will preclude mos= t trivial designs and force anyone wanting to do a fast CW one to "do = it properly"=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is, however, more than adequat= e bandwidth for QRSS, WSPR and JT9 waveforms.

Ther= e's plenty of room on the band for normal QRSS

Andy=C2=A0 G4JNT


On 21 March 2016 at 09:48, Rik Strobbe rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be [rsgb_lf_gr= oup] <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk> wrote:<= br>
=20
=C2=A0
=20 =20

Dear=C2=A0all,

=C2=A0

at the=C2=A0next=C2=A0IARU=C2=A0Regon= I Interim Meeting (Vienna, 16-17 April 2016)=C2=A0the= re is a=C2=A0proposal=C2=A0that concerns the 630 m band:

=C2=A0

It=C2=A0is=C2=A0recommended=C2=A0that= =C2=A0beacons=C2=A0will=C2=A0be=C2=A0accepted in the plan of=C2=A0usage of the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m) in=C2= =A0addition to the=C2=A0Recommendation VA14_C4_REC_02<= a>:=C2=A0 476 - 477 kHz=C2=A0beacons =E2=80=93 maximum=C2=A0bandwidth 200 Hz.=C2=A0 Maximum power output= 1 W EIRP.=C2=A0=C2=A0Beacon=C2=A0proposals<= /a>=C2=A0should=C2=A0adhere to=C2=A0beacon=C2=A0recommendations in the=C2=A0IARU<= a>=C2=A0Region 1=C2=A0HF Managers' Hand= book, and=C2=A0should=C2=A0be=C2=A0approved=C2=A0by = the=C2=A0IARU=C2=A0Region 1=C2=A0Beacon= =C2=A0Coordinator (introduced=C2=A0by NRRL)

=C2=A0

Besides=C2=A0the=C2=A0fact=C2=A0that I=C2=A0am=C2=A0not a fan of the=C2=A0urge to put=C2=A0everything<= /a>=C2=A0into=C2=A0strict=C2=A0rules and I have=C2=A0doubts=C2=A0about the=C2=A0usefulness<= a> of=C2=A0beacons (there are= =C2=A0dozens of=C2=A0NDB's in and=C2=A0near the 630 m band), I do=C2=A0fear=C2= =A0that=C2=A0an=C2=A0"official"=C2=A0beacon = band=C2=A0might=C2=A0attract=C2=A0people=C2=A0or clubs to put up a=C2=A0nice "tech project" and=C2= =A0leave=C2=A0us=C2=A0with the QRM.

The=C2=A0targeted range (476-477 kHz) is de=C2=A0facto<= /a>=C2=A0used=C2=A0for QRSS, a=C2=A0some= "wideband"=C2=A0CW=C2=A0beacons=C2=A0can=C2=A0cause a lot of harm.

=C2=A0

I wonder=C2=A0if=C2=A0NRRL=C2=A0consulted= the few=C2=A0Norwegian=C2=A0hams=C2=A0that are=C2= =A0active=C2=A0on 630 m and=C2=A0if=C2=A0other in=C2=A0societies the ba= nd=C2=A0users=C2=A0were=C2=A0asked=C2=A0for adv= ice?

=C2=A0

73,=C2=A0Rik=C2=A0=C2=A0ON7YD - OR7T<= a>

=C2=A0

=20 =20
__._,_.___
=20 =20 =20 =20
Posted by: Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
Repl= y via web post =E2=80=A2 Reply to sender =E2=80=A2 Reply to group =E2=80=A2 Start a new topic =E2=80=A2 Messages in this topic (6)
=20 =20
3D"Yahoo!
=E2=80=A2 Privacy =E2=80=A2 Unsubscribe =E2=80=A2 Terms of Use

=20 =20 =20 =20
=20
.
=
= =20
__,_._,___
=20

--001a113d18d67cb9f6052e8c14b6--