Topband: RE: Karlquist Proposal for reverse beacons

[Tom Rauch]

While the concept of a receiver is interesting, many good locations would
not be able to participate. The best and least expensive internet
connections are in populated areas, right where copy is worse. Another
problem is the receiver would have to be omni, or dedicated to a few
directions.

My general thought was to spur interest and activity in 160 by DX stations.
Nothing is more frustrating than to have a wide open band and no one on.

A "ping-back" would get ONE station on, as he checked the band and decided
it was "dead" (the receiver certainly couldn't be good while omni, and if it
was directional no one would have any idea of the path direction). You'd
have to do a dozen test pings to make up for QSB. If the ping was public
sooner or later a moron or two would figure out sending a rare call locally
would wake up everyone!

A beacon network with **useful ERP** could tell hundreds how the band is,
what direction the path is, and how the fading is. They could leave a
receiver running. Imitating a steady accurately timed beacon would be too
much for most casual pranksters, and the direction would be a giveaway.

I really think we just need four or five medium power beacons spead over the
USA, maybe two in Europe in the east and west with *reasonable power*,
something in north and south South America, and so on.

If the beacons are on 1999kHz, it is easily possible to notch them out of
any receiver. Besides...if the station hosting the beacon was actually
active and working people, the beacon wouldn't be needed.

>From an engineering and usefulness standpoint, the transmitting beacon has
it all over other systems I can think of. At least that's my opinion.

An international calling frequency might be nearly as good, however.

73 Tom