Hi Chris & All,
I am in favour of the band plan, it looks fine to me. I have always tried to
operate my beacon transmissions well away from QSO's (503.600 KHz).
I do believe that there is a case for beacons as proven in Jim's (M0BMU)
early morning e-mail & capture today showing a long period fading report for
2 beacons.
Perhaps the answer to banning beacons at a certain time period would be to
ask beacon operators to use a much lower power level at these periods, say
down to Chris's recommended qrp level of <10 mW ERP. I recently ran my
beacon for a long period at 1 mW ERP & received reports from Europe.
As the band plan is for discussion at the moment changes can be made if
required, but it looks like Chris has accommodated for the rock bound users
as well.
Thanks to Chris for the idea & well spent time compiling the plan for
discussion.
73
Gary - G4WGT - IO83qp
----- Original Message -----
From: "CHRISTOPHER OSBORN" <[email protected]>
To: "LF group" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:54 PM
Subject: LF: 500 - BAND PLAN
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 freeaccount today.
|
