Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: CQ WW

[Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>]

Hi Mal and group

Yes the chance of an EU reception on the west coast is remote but not 
impossible as evidenced by the reception of VY1JA in Germany in 2006.
There's nothing to prevent your QSO skeds from occurring on other 
frequencies that are more convenient to both parties.  Why do they need 
to be in the wateringholes?  In fact, I'd prefer that as the constant 
chatter (from Mal) on the reflector about when to stop transmitting and 
send report doesn't really seem like a valid attempt at a QSO to me.  So 
perhaps you should use the word testing as opposed to QSO in the 
future... Or maybe beaconing!
The use of 136.177 seemed at the time a compromise to allow more 
dedicated receiving stations to operate on that frequency than before.  
To be blunt, Mal you're not dedicating any resources to the LF 
community's good so I think your voice in this is very small.  Put up a 
grabber and dedicate the time and money to operating it and then speak 
your mind with how you use your equipment.
Here in coastal BC we are plagued by a wide area source of interference 
at the low end of the band that blots out 136.318.  After consultation 
with many of the participants world wide, most operators shifted 
frequency as we now need to consider our colleagues in Japan and the 
need for a split like that of EU and Eastern NA.  Ie. None of the 
present stations in VE7 could use 136318.  The benefit is the 
possibility of exploring propagation tests with amateur stations in EU 
and allowing split operation transpacific in coordination with the rest 
of the world...
Remember that 2200m is now truly a world wide band now and that activity 
may be occurring at anytime on the DX paths not just when G3KEV decides.
Wateringholes are there to allow testing when someone needs a window at 
their convenience, its nice if that window is the same world wide and of 
course that means compromise...  True QSO work is not confined to these 
limits as both operators can QSY where ever they like.  So please do so 
if you have issues at either end.
73 Scott
VE7TIL






On 2/13/2011 6:00 AM, mal hamilton wrote:
> Jay
> At the time I was against the move because as you say it worked well for
> years and why change for one person.
> In future to suit the majority of USA stations I will TX on 136.318 Khz and
> will be on tonite on that frequency.
> Your shots of both freq shows the advantage of 136.318 also the possibility
> of EU stations being heard/seen on the West coast of Canada is Remote.
> Warren indicated he also had a problem from QRM on 136.177
> Others reading this email might want to consider moving back to the old
> tried and tested frequency.
> 136.318           136.318
> I am running around 0.5w erp at present but can QRO to 1w erp if needed for
> a QSO
>
> Nice to have your opinion and pse adjust your Grabber to 318
> also hope W4DEX and AA1A will have a look for TA acty agn.
>
>
> I will start TA QSO mode tonite at 2230 utc if Dex and Warren
>
> de Mal/G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:<jrusgrove@comcast.net>
> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 12:54 PM
> Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: CQ WW
>
>
> > Mal
> >
> > Was preoccupied last night and thought I had switched on the temporary
> grabber but apparently not
> > ...
> >
> > AFAIK the window was moved from 136318 to 136177 to accommodate VE7TIL and
> a noise problem he has at
> > 318. Unfortunately the move hasn't worked out well for me. For years 318
> has been a clear spot at
> > this location and provided some amazing T/A receptions - like CT1DRP
> copied 1-1/2 hours before local
> > sunset. At 177 extraneous signals are the norm more often than not and
> I've given up regular T/A
> > watching because of it. It's the odd time that interference isn't present.
> >
> > The two attachments (if they make it through) show the difference at this
> location.
> > Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2