Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS

[Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>]

You'll have to wear sack cloth and ashes soon Pete :-)

73s and GL

Roger G3XBM

On 6 January 2013 11:21, M0FMT <m0fmt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

OK Chris

 

I retract ...sorry again!....

73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX

From: Chris <c.ashby435@btinternet.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2013, 9:59

Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS

Hi Stefan,

I agree with Mike, XDV, it makes more sense to have QRSS near the band edge, for the reasons stated. I cannot agree with your suggestion that QRSS would cause problems to 'normal' CW operation, filters easily take care of that one! There are also two edges of the band!

I also heard the AM in the middle of the band late afternoon yesterday. It didn't cause a problem here with anything, again, I agree with Chris, XIZ. If anything, it was the other way round, the very strong QRSS carriers were QRMing the AM! A couple of us in this immediate area are planning some QRP AM and will take care not to interfere with others as far as possible. The centre of the band is the logical place to do this.

There will always be the odd rogue who goes totally over the top, there are amateurs near me who regularly and quite openly use powers well in excess of the legal limit on topband. That's life.

Pete, FMT, I really think you have totally lost the plot now. I didn't realise how anti-RSGB you are, but maybe this is not the place to express such exaggerated and blatently absurd opinions? I joined the RSGB last year after several contributors on here suggested I was 'getting a free ride' at their expense.

Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, JO01MI.

----- Original Message -----

From: Stefan Schäfer

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:40 PM

Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS

Hi Chris,

Which kind of amateur radio activity did you plan to that time that became actually impossible due to the QRSS stations? Why were the QRSS stations a problem but the WSPR stations not? And the NDBs with their carrier and two sidebands? No problem? Only the QRSS stations?

Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:

Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band?

It was me who started the trend to do QRSS-10 in that range.

The intention was to give QRSS stations a "playing field" which is outside the CW QSO range. There have been QRSS transmissions arround the lower end of the band, which caused interference to the CW stations. QRSS-10 is suitable for DX on MF, allows to study QSB phenomena and do some QRPP tests and so on...
A few minutes ago it was interesting to see the QSB delay between PA3CPM and PA3FNY here!

It is no problem to move that QRSS range but there should be a real reason. And the reason should be explained with some examples of actual amateur activity insead of theoretical considerations. BTW it was not my suggestion to place WSPR arround 475.7 Khz or OPERA arround 478.5 kHz ;-)

There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this.

Was it QRSS or the NDB or maybe WSPR, which is just 500 Hz lower? I think it is not unusual to see strong signals on that band.

I would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers would be better suited to near the band edges.

Three German operators suggested a band plan during late September, in which QRSS was near the bottom of the band.

CW is the only mode that is actually practised (on the band, not in email discussions!) by a number of stations which requires EARS instead of a computer to decode the information. So this is a real reason to protect the CW region from other signals which would all cause interference to them.

As far as I remember this plan was met with some hostility.

It has been suggested that people will not stick to a band plan. I find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of QRSS, if they want their signals to be found.

Another problem I would suggest, is just how many know how to measure/calculate their EIRP? I have noticed several contributors to this reflector refer to ERP.

Food for thought?

http://www.strobbe.org/on7yd/136ant/#AntEff

That's just my personal point of view. As said, the intention was to give QRSS stations a "playing field" so that the CW activity on the lower end is not further disturbed. After all i think we can all work together on that band without stress. At least if no one will come and say "but i want to have the upper 6 kHz for my local AM tests" ;-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Vy 73,

Chris, G4AYT.

--
 http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
http://qss2.blogspot.com/