(Araucaria) Planned shift of 6m beacon subband

Segunda Junho 14 15:22:26 BRT 2010

Encaminho mensagem do Peter - HB9RUZ, sobre uma proposta da RSGB de alteração na alocação das frequências dos beacons em 6 metros.

É importante a opinião dos radioamdores brasileiros e sulamericanos se posicionando sobre esta matéria.

A meu ver, não há nenhuma vantagem prática na proposta, pelo contrário, só ocorrerão transtornos para os operadores da banda.

73's

Ron
PP2RON

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear keeper of a 6m beacon

on the IARU Vienna meeting the RSGB proposed that the IARU region 1 6m bandplan should be changed in a way as to move the beacon subband from 50.0-50.08 up to 50.4 - 50.5 Mhz. The reallocation according to RSGB should be done until the 31.12.2012 latest. The proposal was accepted to be presented for final approval at the next IARU region 1 full meeting in South Africa.

In the document below I stress in points A. and B. the prerequisties needed before even thinking to

move the 6m beacon subband, which presently and fortunately allocates 90% of all 6m beacons worldwide 

within the same 80kHz, i.e. 50.0 - 50.08

Meanwhile the chairman of the IARU region 1 VHF/UHF/MW committee, recognizing the validity of point B. but ignoring point A., asks the IARU chairmans of regions 2 and 3 whether they can realise the same reallocation of the beacon subband in their regions up to the 31.12.2012 latest. 

In the document attached, I explain why this move, if ever accepted to be performed by all regions, should

not be performed shortly before the maximum of a solar cycle.

If you share my opinion, I suggest that you to inform your contries traffic/VHF manager about what is going on, so they can make up their opinion before being consulted by the regions chairman. 

In region 1 unfortunately only a few beacon keepers had been consulted by their IARU country deleguees before the Vienna meeting about the consequences of a shift of the 6 beacon subband. I hope, that this question will be dealt with in a more democratic way in your region... 

If you are no more in charge of the beacon, please forward this email including the document to the present beacon keeper and keep me informed about the new valid email address.

Vy 73 de Peter HB9RUZ member of the HB9SIX beacon operator group

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of uttermost priority when trying to reallocate beacons on 6m

Below I am referring to the special role of 6m beacons as early warning indicators for the DX propagation modes found in ther years centered around the maximum of a solar cycle, e.g. F2, TEP, TEL and TPL, see:

http://www.uksmg.org/content/g5kw/50%20Mhz%20Long-Path%20Propagation%20by%20KH6-K6MIO.pdf

A. Respecting the phase of worldwide propagation within a solar cycle 

Due to the increased value of the beacons as early warning indicators around the maximum of a solar cycle, the time window in which a reallocation with its unavoidable delays has to be performed should be placed around a solar cycle minimum. When complying with this condition, the negative side effects of a wordwide gradual reallocation can be minimized. 

B. Value of a sole worldwide beacon subband

I am not trying here to prove the advantage of having the same frequency allocation for the 6m beacon band in every IARU region. 

Once all IARU regions come to the accordance of the reallocation of the 6m beacon subband, then the new subband should contain all beacons worldwide, as it is now (in region 1 the 3 German ones are allocated on 50.083 and 7 others above 50.3, where accordingly they are hardly ever spotted on a cluster) 

If conditions A. and B. are met, any frictions and temporary disadvantages will be kept to a minimum. In addition to that some more important factors should be observed:

Consequences of a reallocation for the beacon DX aces and beacon operators

Many DX enthusiasts all over the world have optimised their Yagis for 50.120 Mhz (mid of the 50.0-50.03 DX window). This commodity is only possible by the fact, that the beacon subband, the CW exclusive subband and the phoneDX window are allocated in a close neighbourhood. 

If these subbands are spread out within the 6m band, as follows by the RSGB proposal, this advantage would have to be sacrificed 

Operators would have to decide once for all on the subband favoured by the design of their yagi and have it changed accordingly, this possibility hardly being offered by commercial designs.

Dealing with the groups or individuals operating a beacon, the following findings apply:

Many beacons are located on mountaintops, isles and in the outback. This means that some of them have to spend a lot of money and spare time only to reach the remote locations of their beacon. This would have to be done more than once, e.g. when the beacon is of a crystal frequency multiplication type or with ex government channelized rigs, whose frequency raster had been shifted to meet the beacons odd frequency.

All of this does not mean, that it cannot be expected of an owner of a high performance yagi or of an operator group of a beacon. However it means for both of these groups, 

that if prerequisite A. is fullfilled, the needed work can be made in line with preventive maintenance measures which would have to be done anyway within a time window of several years without additional expenses.

The RSGB proposal is not well thought out

If RSGB at the Vienna IARU meeting was bringing to vote a proposal to move the 6m beacon subband, this shows, that neither a correlation of the planned time frame with

the characteristics 6m-propagation nor an analysis of the consequences of scattering the different IARU regions beacon subbands has ben done. 

If IARU is not granting a generous time frame to the beacon-operators but instead tries to force them to change frequencies in a heave ho manner until the end of 2012. This date 

will correspond with the next solar cycles maximum +/- 1 year, which is exactly what should be avoided referring to A. above.

The RSGB proposal easily might be a contraproductive one. Most of the operators maintain their beacons in their spare time and with their own money. If IARU wants to encourage the setup of time synchronized beacon networks, they are dependent on the goodwill of beacon operators and therefore would be well advised to consult these in the future, before trying to impose mistimed duties on them.

The official reasoning behind the RSGB proposal:

Especially during the sporadic-E season operators encounter a dreadful crowding between 50.1 and 50.2 Mhz

According to my personal experience of more than 4000 QSO on 6, this does not hold true. On the few occasions of geographically widespread multi-hop-Es-openings, operators automatically spread out up to 50.3. The reason of Traffic problems in the 6m band are rather due to the fact, that the big number of not so rare stations want to work the exactly the same rare stations and that the stations additionally tend to use only frequencies being multiples of 10 Khz.

What has been proposed and accepted for definitive approval is well-meant but half-baked. The allocation of the subbands for the various activities on 6m may not be an optimal one, but is at least a proven one and a good one for the time being. 

Abstract

The scattering of the 6m beacon subbands between the various IARU regions in times of a maximum of a solar cycle should be avoided for the sake of all beneficiaries and operators of 6m beacons.

Therefore I think it worthwhile that beaconkeepers sharing my thoughts inform their

national VHF/traffic managers in order to bring in their attitude in time.

8.6.2010 Peter Schleuss, HB9RUZ 

-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: http://list.araucariadx.com/pipermail/araucaria/attachments/20100614/27a09976/attachment.html 