Markus,
My antenna tuning unit is outside 100 meters away from
the ham shack.
I am unwilling to go out in the winter night to retune the antenna to
QSY to the lower frequency segment.
--
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ
WD2XSH/23
WE2XEB/2
WE2XGR/1
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Markus Vester <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear LF,
>
> the passage should have said:
>
> Taking into account the path of mutual darkness, this would mean that all
> stations should transmit in the UPPER band during their evenings until local
> midnight, and then QSY to the lower band for the rest of the night.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> 73, Markus
> From: Markus Vester
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes
> Dear LF group,
>
> recently we find the "transatlantic waterhole" around 137.777 kHz quite
> busy. Several Europeans have started beaconing within this segment. And
> there has been some fast (QRSS3 or 10) activity, with wide traces covering
> up possible transatlantic DX signalling frequencies.
>
> During the last years, we have attempted to split the frequency bands
> for both directions of transatlantic work. Traditional segments were around
> 137.777 kHz west-to-east (for Americans transmitting towards Eu), and around
> 136.320 kHz east-west (for Eu to stateside). Slow modes (QRSS or DFCW, 60
> second and longer) were used almost exclusively there, and several stations
> were able to successfully cross the pond in either direction.
>
> The situation has become a little more intricate as more stations from other
> parts of the world (eg. Asia, China, Japan) are joining the game with
> sensitive receivers and good signals. But I still think it would be helpful
> to separate RX and TX bands within each area as much as possible.
>
> My suggestion would be to stick with the east-west versus west-east
> allocation of the two slots. Taking into account the path of mutual
> darkness, this would mean that all stations should transmit in the lower
> band during their evenings until local midnight, and then QSY to the lower
> band for the rest of the night. Receiver settings would of course be vice
> versa.
>
> I'm aware that this scheme cannot be perfect and universal. It won't cover
> North-South hauls, and would not protect signals during early or late
> openings. But it's simple enough, and I believe it would still be very
> useful. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to discourage anyone from
> putting out a signal, and certainly reject the notion of anything
> reminiscent of a "band police". I just think a little coordination may help
> all of us to be successful on this challenging and fascinating band.
>
> Let me have your thoughts...
>
> 73 de Markus, DF6NM
>
> http://freenet-homepage.de/df6nm/Grabber.htm
>
>
|
