Graham, LF,
I do agree that ERP is more meaningful & as Mal & Andy stated it is the
criteria with which the licence is approved.
My comment was to follow the WSPR recommended method as adopting ERP would
mean there are two "standards".
I ERP is adopted for LF then it should be international & not just UK, so an
official announcement by the main WSPR group would be required.
Comments please.
Gary - G4WGT.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham
Sent: 25 January 2009 20:29
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
Gary,
I don't think a guard band is really needed as if you set the centre carrier
frequency to 503.9 , then operating at the extreme edges is not really
possible, you're right on the edge of the waterfall. the deviation is only
round 6 hz
Re power .. I would say, the erp is the most meaningful, actual power
supplied to the antenna without the performance data of the array doesn't
really mean too much ?
G ..
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary - G4WGT" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:11 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
>
> Hi All,
>
> In agreement with John & Graham, I believe that makes sense. The top part
> of
> the band is probably the least used area so we just need to agree on a
> 200Hz
> slot of either 503.800 to 504.000KHz with no guard band or 503.700 to
> 503.900KHz with a 100Hz guard band.
>
> My WSPR beacon is now active using dial frequency 502.000KHz & 503.550KHz
> data.
>
> Looks like Andy just beat me to the announcement.
>
> 73
>
> Gary - G4WGT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham
> Sent: 25 January 2009 18:32
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
>
> John,
>
> Looks close to my post , just, as wspr is such a narrow mode, could move
> to
>
> the band edge without problems
> clear of the occasional qrss slightly lower down
>
> With a move to vfo/exciter control, defining the wspr slot is a
> reasonable
> concept as it will allow other 'casual'
> monitor stations to be established .. and negate the number of post
> needed
> to announce a test !
>
> What of the beacons that used this area of the band , are they qrt or just
> sleeping ?
>
> G ..
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "John P-G" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 6:04 PM
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
>
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:40:27 +0000
>> Andy Talbot <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there some sort of unofficial bandplan on this band?
>>
>> Oh no!
>>
>> Please let's not get into this again....
>>
>> At the moment there is no bandplan, but general concensus would
>> indicate "beacons at the band edges - real QSOs in the middle".
>>
>> The current WSPR activity around 503.5 (502.0 dial) seems reasonable,
>> although moving up a few hundred Hz wouldn't hurt, say to 502.3 dial
>> which gives a 200Hz window at 503.7 - 503.9
>>
>> There are often CW mode beacons near the bottom of the band - GI4DPE,
>> GW3UEP and others, and it's convenient to have them there - it allows
>> monitoring them and SK6RUD concurrently.
>>
>>
>> That's just my view on how things have evolved.
>>
>> "Real Man's CW" seems to live around 502.63
>>
>> John
>> GM4SLV
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date:
>> 1/24/2009 20:40
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date:
> 1/24/2009 20:40
>
|
