|
Dear Mike,
first of all, let me say that your signal has never
created any problem here, and I appreciate your careful choice of operating
techniques to mitigate potential interference. As
far as I could see, there were only very few occasions,
when spectrograms in Holland and France where being
desensitized when you and XGJ were on simultaneously. But on the
other hand, I think I would have a problem if I lived much closer to
you.
I also completely
understand your point about the lack of feedback from grabbers operating in
the designated Eu slot. In the past, we were rewarded by
excellent captures, for example from Jay and Laurence. In my opinion, the point
of the story is to motivate every LF grabber operator to include an Eu slot
as well.
Regarding choice of frequency: If I remember right,
we went from the original 135.92 kHz to 136.32, because the
latter provided a larger gap between American Loran lines - which is no
more an issue now. But recently, CFH's wideband FSK around 137.0 has been
reactivated. How much does it affect stateside reception on 136.32? If they
continue, we may consider to bring the slot back to the bottom
end.
Kind regards,
Markus (DF6NM)
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: LF: Eu QRSS freq. Was 'XDV QRSS60 137k'
Hartmut,
You are
right. In the past I have strongly argued that Eu beacons
should be in that
part of the band. However, the reality is that no-
one is listening there
(apart from a couple of Eu grabbers). There
are grabbers in Alaska, Western
Canada, Japan and Eastern Russia but
not one covers the 136.320kHz
sub-band.
That sub-band was originally created when there were many Eu
(mostly
UK) stations chasing QSOs and reports from the east coast of America
-
there were even several Canadians capable of two-way QSOs. The idea
of the split frequency was that these QSOs should not cause QRM to
each
other. Now there are very few Eu stations interested in DX
working, and
seemingly no east coast American stations routinely
monitoring.
I try not to QRM those Eu stations who are monitoring for US and
Russian beacons. This is achieved by not beaconing every day, and by
not
beaconing continuously (which is why I synchronise each
transmission with
the start of each hour). My frequency is much lower
than most US and Russian
beacons. I have also announced that if my
transmissions cause anyone any
problems, I will close down. In
practice, unless the receiving station is
within about 150km of me
there is little chance of real QRM - last night
EW6GB was fully
readable just 0.2Hz HF of me on the grabbers of DF6NM and
OE3GHB.
There is still a use for the Eu DX sub-band during two-way DX
QSOs,
or tests involving lots of activity. I will be the first to use it
again if any DX stations are prepared to monitor it.
Does anyone else
have a view on this?
Mike, G3XDV
==========
|
