Return to KLUBNL.PL main page
| To: | LF group <[email protected]> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | LF: 500 - BAND PLAN |
| From: | CHRISTOPHER OSBORN <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:54:37 +0100 (BST) |
| Delivered-to: | [email protected] |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=WBYbPBxuFei/I9TdCaMwg8KDTbf66HrYeFfNcutaXC7dZnHq3Bph1MHGoTAMlnbXaC9SGuwnRI0g8Jozm4BbuXlIkniVOUU0W7z8F+51WD7RsCkN6A3y1ppwDLY/eQV2kztEdVo0AzOjPFye4Dtmzqdhn6NzS7A2u3fVk5vsWEY=; |
| Domainkey-status: | bad (test mode) |
| Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
| Reply-to: | [email protected] |
| Sender: | [email protected] |
|
CT DISCUSSION POINTS Obviously an ideal band plan would benefit as many stations as possible to the inconvenience of as few as possible. There seems to be a need to separate the QRSS modes and beacons from the 'straight' cw segment of the band. There may be a case for beacon and QRSS 'silence periods' during times of likely high cw activity (weekends). QRSS modes and PSK/RTTY need defined band plan locations. As most of the stations are congregated in the SE corner of the UK, local QSO's amongst themselves should ideally be separated from QSO's with more distant stations. It would be useful to have a QRP calling frequency to facilitate 'homing in' on weaker stations. Is there a case for the call 'CQ CQ CQ X' to denote a crystal controlled transmission ? 73 G3XIZ SK
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: LF: 137 Again, Laurence KL1X |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN, Alan Ibbetson |
| Previous by Thread: | LF: BEACON - G3XIZ - 503.947 - BAND PLAN, CHRISTOPHER OSBORN |
| Next by Thread: | Re: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN, Alan Ibbetson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
