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 -----
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.
