AW: [Meteor-Scatter] MS Procedures - back to the discussion

[Paul Higginson]

In message <NEECJENPMGNMJPEEOLOGCEHDCGAA.tread@bigroup.freeserve.co.uk>, 
Tony Read <tread@bigroup.freeserve.co.uk> writes

First of all Tony I agree, we need to discuss what is required now and 
in the future. Not what worked in the past with different levels of 
activity, different periods and different modes etc.. of course we 
should look at the methods that were employed for HSCW and SSB ms 
operation, the good parts can be utilised and improved / adapted to suit 
the new modes.

Anyway, you said :

>The real problem for me as a G station is this, with the increase in traffic
>(which is nice to see) there is usually somebody calling CQ on the 2nd
>period therefore it is impossible to hear any dx station calling.
<Snip>

And I think this problem is even greater for our friends in PA / DL

>
>To my mind if we all called cq with a qsy qrg then the problem has been
>limited and it could be possible to have qsos in the Wrong period without
>causing others problems and without having to use the cluster.
>


But I'm not sure that this would help much Tony, during the peaks of 
activity ( not just peak of showers but Sunday mornings etc.. ) you 
still wouldn't hear the dx in the opposite period to your "normal" one 
due to unintentional QRM.

IMHO I think that there is another  reason that Call + QSY isn't ideal 
for FSK441. Weak pings can result in curious decodes. In HSCW it was 
hard to confuse by ear CQA with CQB and therefore it was very 
successful. A weak FSK441 ping of CQ363 can very easily be decoded as 
CQ36anything! And the resulting QRM created by 5 stations all answering 
within a few Khz of each other is something to behold. The potential for 
QSY'ing to frequencies that are being used in the opposite period is 
quite likely with this approach.

Another less than ideal suggestion is the use  of  an ODD and EVEN 
period calling frequency, this way there would at least be a chance of 
hearing other stations. The choice of frequencies would need careful 
consideration, I have seen suggestions of 370 and 367 for the opposing 
periods. I wonder how many stations primarily set up for ms, running qro 
/ mast head pre amps in front of 746's / 847's and ts2000's etc could 
survive at 3Khz spacing and even a few tens of kilometres?  Stations in 
highly populated areas might find themselves with no improvement using 
this method

As a sticking plaster approach, CQ QSY and differing frequencies for 
opposite periods would probably help out. Using the CLX for self 
spotting isn't ideal as there are still users who cannot fathom the 
trivial matter of filtering. So there will always be resentment with 
that approach. Sked by converse, 20m or reflectors would always be a 
better approach  but perhaps there is a  better long term solution. 
Could the co-ordinated sked system idea be borrowed from the EME 
community? In a connected world it should be possible to develop an 
online sked list similar to the eme .skd file distribution.

This would move all of the odd ball qso's completely away from 370 
resulting in a significant improvement in the success rate. We could 
even start using 15 second periods during showers etc.. This could leave 
370 as a centre of activity for "normal" 30s random qso's

Expeditions could advertise their normal working frequency / period 
/skeds and random periods and this co-ordinated approach would surely 
improve their success rate.

Not everyone is connected and they might be seen as disadvantaged, but I 
think even their random operations would be improved as there would be 
significantly less congestion on 370.

Well... I don't suppose that will fly :-)

73 de

-- 
73 de Paul GW8IZR IO73TI
http://www.gw8izr.com