Hi Chris,
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?
Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
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.
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 ;-)
There are two extremely strong
signals there now as I write this.
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.
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.
|
|
