Agree to push power up
Regards
Lawrence
On 3/21/16, DK7FC <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...instead of putting efforts in the definition of a band plan i suggest
> they focus on working to push the power limit by 10 dB upwards! That
> would be helpful.
> I bet, no one of those who want to decide where which mode can be used
> has ever been QRV, nor will ever!
>
> 73, Stefan
>
> Am 21.03.2016 10:48, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
|
