Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan
From: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:59:17 -0000
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <25ABBD1601E44E7F9331F06E2022921D@IBM7FFA209F07C>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <25ABBD1601E44E7F9331F06E2022921D@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Chris,
 
Most  is  down to  qth ,  I have  good  signals  from  EI/GI    , can  work  with  25  watts  ae  feed  , but  out  your  way and  over to  EU , the  odds  stack  up 
 
Mal  gets  good  signals from  EU , but  you  can  see  from  previous  beacon tests , land  adds   10's  of dB loss  very  quickly , costal  effect  may  also  slue bearings  and  produce  shadow zones  inland as well  , with  75 miles  ground  range , its  fine  for  local  working  in the  day  , much  better  than  160  .... 
 
as  wspr  now  has  2  audio  bands , the  original  same  dial  set  qrg  for  opera/wspr  is  now  defunct  , unless  only  wspr  2  is  used , im not  sure  if 15  is really   any  use  on 477 as  looking  at  Andys jnt  coverage   with  2  watts  erp  , its not extensive ?  2/4/8 is  about max , 8 could be   too  much , 6  could  be  better  with the  120  second  qsb and similar  flash  times 
 
added to  that  , the  existing  beacons  are  taking  up  a lot  of  space  ?
 
73 -G..
From: Chris
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:57 PM
Subject: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Personally I don't think it's all bad in a limited sort of way. I would welcome an agreement on (1) a section for individual beacons, and (2) a defined section for QRSS. At the moment I haven't a clue where exactly to monitor. The idea of moving QRSS away from the centre of the band (but even nearer the bottom) is preferable. I am sure other mode enthusiasts would find it more desirable/helpful to know where to listen. Not so sure about the CW calling frequency so high though.
I am surprised CW activity hasn't taken off to a larger extent though, I regularly hear strong stations calling CQ over and over, getting no replies. Not very encouraging.
Chris, G4AYT.
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 8:24
Subject: LF: NRRL proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Are you aware of this proposal?
What do you think about it?
73 de Toni, HB9ASB


Recommendation
From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the time being) like to present the
following proposal for a 630 m IARU Region 1 bandplan:
472 - 479 kHz (630 m)
472 - 475 kHz  CW only – maximum bandwidth 200 Hz
    472.000 - 472.150  CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated)
    472.150 - 472.300  CW QRSS
    472.600                    CW DX Calling
    474.750                    CW Calling
475 - 479 kHz  CW + digimodes – maximum bandwidth 500 Hz
Contests should be discouraged in this very narrow 630 m band where radio
amateurs are secondary users.
Comment:
NRRL feels that it will be premature to further subdivide different digimodes. This
may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after considering
experiences.








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