Gerhard please turn off your requested response feature in your email...

Many thanks...

Vernon

To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Intercontinental LF waterholes

Hello folks!

I was one of the "bad boys" transmitting yesterday night in the
"waterhole"...The purpose were some test with the antenna where I rely
on grabbers.

But of course, I didn't choose my qrg by chance or to interfere with
somebody else. No, rather the reasoning is what Mike writes in his post
below.

Some of the grabbers even don't have a window around 700 but only show
the "waterhole". I also know, that people who run grabbers can't be
blamed for not offering this opportunity.

I'm not aware if offering such a 2nd window is a lot of work or if it is
just "done by software". Anyways, I would appreciate such an
alternative.

Cheers es 73

OE3GHB

Gerhard




Am Freitag, den 11.12.2009, 10:22 +0000 schrieb Mike Dennison:

Markus is absolutely right. This should reduce QRM for those monitoring for DX, and improve the chance of two-way DX QSOs. However, I think many stations have recently used the upper slot because most grabbers are set for this area (except Markus's own excellent system). Is it possible for more grabbers to be dual frequency?

Mke, G3XDV
==========


On 11 Dec 2009 at 9:38, Markus Vester 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 >