> A second lesser concern would be QRM. With multiple people
attempting
> to access a receiver with multiple transmitters, we will
have random
> transmissions on the "beacon" frequency. Certainly any DX
receiver should
be placed outside traditionally active areas of the bands.
There may be a point of concern here. However, if one were
to limit the
number of simultaneous users (one or maybe two), then the
QRM would be
reduced. If the number of simultaneous users were not
limited, then I would
agree with Tom that the reverse beacon should moved to less
often used band
segments.>>
I very strongly disagree. This is a terrible idea.
There is no less QRM caused by a receiving beacon then there
would be by a transmitting beacon on the same frequency.
Making matters worse, the suggestion is these things be
placed in primary shared areas of the band. They have
absolutely no place on any frequency people commonly use.
None.
I'm really perplexed by what DX'ers on 160 are thinking
these days. We get rid of the DX Window because we want DX
to be everywhere. There is a big effort to move W1AW off
1817.5 and move it below 1810 where it can bother PSK, with
no thought as to how it would affect others below 1810 as
long as the DX area is clear.
We don't want anyone else bothering us, we fight for clear
frequencies, and at the same time we are willing to place
receivers for people to "ping" on primary frequencies just
so one transmitting station at a time can learn if one
receiver on one antenna at one location can hear his signal?
Then we want to do this serially?
Imagine five of these things, one each on 1831, 32, 33, 34,
and 35, with only 25 people pinging away serially trying to
see if the band is open. A steady stream of callers pinging
the beacons with everyone setting their transmitter dials
somewhat close to the beacon frequency would be a real mess.
The worse thing about it is only ONE person at a time learns
anything from the QRM caused by the ping!
With a transmitting beacon, every single person using 160
could listen. The payback for QRM of one reasonable power
transmitter with a reasonable antenna transmitter taking up
only one frequency would be thousands of people could know
what conditions are like. Multiple transmitters could be
placed on one frequency.
Why worry about W1AW when we are designing a system that
will cause even more problems if it becomes even remotely
popular?
Multiple transmitters operated in serial on primary
frequencies just so one person at a time can check
conditions does not seem to be sensible.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|