Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: 472kHz Band QRSS
From: wolf_dl4yhf <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:23:54 +0100
In-reply-to: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
References: <28CB8EF648E7418BB5C2D4802F72C23C@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
Hi Chris,

IIRC the main objection was to have beacon-like QRSS transmissions at the *lower* end of the band because it was the largest section without strong NDBs.
Instead of moving high-power QRSS transmissions to the begin of the band, I would suggest such transmissions at the end of the band, where the risk of deafening the receiver in the neighbourhood is as low as possible. Problem with this for TA enthusiasts: If the same "bandplan" is used on both sides of the atlantic, one would have to agree on time slotted transmissions but it's questionable if everyone would stick to the scheme (similar as on EME and VHF meteor scatter).

73,
  Wolf DL4YHF .


Am 05.01.2013 15:04, schrieb Chris:
Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band? There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this. 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. 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?
Vy 73,
Chris, G4AYT.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>