> Since by general consent the 600m band is now wide open for experimentation
> of whatever computer aided mode that can be down loaded for free off the
> Internet. Might I suggest the use of SSTV.
Several of us did exactly this last year (SSTV on 600m).
The WE2XGR license (505-515kHz) 200W ERP can run practically any data
modes as well as ssb.
By staying above 510kHz we avoided causing QRM to other users of the
band (the others are all below 510).
Results were better than expected, my 100W (transmitter power out) was
copied clearly about 600mi away in Ohio.
I'm sure that if Bob WE2XGR/6 decided to run SSTV with his 200W ERP
you could copy it in the U.K.
--
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ
WD2XSH/23
WE2XEB/2
WE2XGR/1
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, M0FMT <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi LF
>
They say a picture is worth a
> 1000 words. I have thousands of holiday snaps I would like to share with the
> world by way of a 24/7 beaconing experiment. The result may be a bit more
> interesting than the shopping lists of stations worked, equipment lists and
> rig specifications that get churned out ad nauseam over the weekends.
>
> I am not sure what my afore mentioned local Amateur Radio 600m op friends
> would feel being only a few miles away from my QTH.
>
> No, the above suggestion is ridiculous. It does however, Einstein, Planck et
> al withstanding, beg the question; what is a suitable maximum bandwidth for
> the development of new modes on our British 3Kc/s 600m band? I will start
> the ball rolling by saying a BW no more than 50c/s. G3PLX managed with less
> than 32c/s BW. Since there is a QSB / QRN issue on this band then hand
> shaking could be introduced to ensure error free data transfer a bit like
> X25 slow but sure yet confined in a very narrow bandwidth say 50c/s max. We
> need to think outside the box and not try to shoe horn unsuitable modes onto
> 600m. To evoke names like Planck and co with all due respect to Alberto (who
> I admire immensely for his great innovations with DSP, SDR, FFT processing
> software) I think, is over the top. Nobody is into book burning and denial
> of spectrum to impede progress but we only have 3kc/s to play with here in
> the UK. I consider myself a "grunt" operator not a highflying "Einstein"
> radio spectrum quantum mechanic, but I would hope we are trying to do more
> with less and I don't think Olivia is the answer. Whatever modes are
> proposed and developed, I would expect one of the cardinal points in their
> specification, along with very narrow BW, to be compatibility with adjacent
> modes like CW and the effect on adjacent stations not running that
> particular mode.
>
> In the mean time I am hoping to improve my manual CW skills assuming there
> are any stations still interested in that form of error correcting narrow
> band data transfer and are still prepared to QSO with me.
>
> Now retreating into my cave with my knuckles dragging along the ground.
>
> Vy 73 petefmt
>
>
|
