Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Inter

from [Andy Talbot] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
From: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:54:17 +0000
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=mx9Z2tGoKlGTvHEQsGi22QcA+d00e647nbGcNNhhVsc=; b=0V0dlXbMe2B7T+ylTcDiq4Y7QgBtKEiH5stmAiaT+sIoj64cSHZzQaFBxjGX/F3ile H5JMJSRuwtpGa83S4eK7X+99xewNT+ZCPNjJubxvT/5JUmjGGJYpuy2FsRyAmAqXiLJr sFprj8DC7cAlWNyHuGigveLHoAWvcpFfSKlZWA2FlI0Ub1Bpzli+rLTf7CqexMYUjg2c 9OHe9jKf4NpykIaFH3vzi6On2w5t9RG+F0OYupil8UJXIfIMIROYx247qzSZPZB93vy3 nS3jcOXySvU/WnVCw8vAAHVCOx0oruw1jNqbUhDPMYmvpQzgwyZTz9DOCAqF3frcWRgc qR8w==
In-reply-to: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be>
References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
The band is wide enough to support beacons, and narrow beacons offer an awful lot more in terms of propagation and band monitoring than the wideband non-stable transmissions that NDBs offer.

However, I do think 200Hz is too wide , that WILl encourage trivial non scientific types of beacons - like normal CW.  And that really IS served by NDBs

I suggest specifying a limit of 50Hz bandwidth for any beacon in that band, which will preclude most trivial designs and force anyone wanting to do a fast CW one to "do it properly"     It is, however, more than adequate bandwidth for QRSS, WSPR and JT9 waveforms.

There's plenty of room on the band for normal QRSS

Andy  G4JNT


On 21 March 2016 at 09:48, Rik Strobbe [email protected] [rsgb_lf_group] <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Dear all,

 

at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna, 16-17 April 2016) there is a proposal that concerns the 630 m band:

 

It is recommended that beacons will be accepted in the plan of usage of the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m) in addition to the Recommendation VA14_C4_REC_02:  476 - 477 kHz beacons – maximum bandwidth 200 Hz.  Maximum power output 1 W EIRP.  Beacon proposals should adhere to beacon recommendations in the IARU Region 1 HF Managers' Handbook, and should be approved by the IARU Region 1 Beacon Coordinator (introduced by NRRL)

 

Besides the fact that I am not a fan of the urge to put everything into strict rules and I have doubts about the usefulness of beacons (there are dozens of NDB's in and near the 630 m band), I do fear that an "official" beacon band might attract people or clubs to put up a nice "tech project" and leave us with the QRM.

The targeted range (476-477 kHz) is de facto used for QRSS, a some "wideband" CW beacons can cause a lot of harm.

 

I wonder if NRRL consulted the few Norwegian hams that are active on 630 m and if other in societies the band users were asked for advice?

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

__._,_.___
Posted by: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a new topic • Messages in this topic (6)

.

__,_._,___

[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016), Rik Strobbe
Next by Date:  Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016), DK7FC
Previous by Thread:  LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016), Rik Strobbe
Next by Thread:  Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016), DK7FC
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]