Go to page       >>  

IARU REGION-1 50MHz BAND PLAN - EME USAGE

Author Post

David, G4ASR

Fri Nov 06 2009, 03:30PM
I have just written this paper in my role as RSGB VHF Manager and member of the IARU Region-1 VHF/UHF Committee. It will be presented at the IARU Region-1 *Interim* meeting in Vienna, March 2010. Please note that this is not the Full Conference (being held in 2011) and that this paper may not be ratified until then. However it can be agreed in principle at the interim meeting.

This paper is in line with current practice both in the UK and further afield within IARU Regions 1, 2 and 3.

Please feedback comments here (preferred) or via my email address.

50MHz BAND PLAN – EME USAGE.

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of specific MGM transmission modes, such as JT65, Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) operation is now possible with single-Yagi stations.

However there is no specific meeting place within the 50MHz band to conduct these types of contacts.


CURRENT SITUATION

Frequencies are mutually agreed to in advance to avoid birdies and interference, often around 50.200MHz.

An analysis of three years of DX Cluster spots regarding worldwide EME contacts shows that the majority of contacts are made on or around 50.190MHz.

PROPOSAL
To add within the Usage column of the 50MHz Band Plan:

50.190MHz: EME (MGM)


NOTE

A number of digital MGM transmission modes have been specifically written into the band plan that over time have either been superseded or made redundant by newer techniques.

It is therefore better practice to mention within the Usage column EME (MGM) rather than specific digital modes.

For further details regarding 50MHz EME see…

<end>
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Fri Nov 06 2009, 05:03PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
Hello David. I agree
Back to top
Arie, PC7M
Sat Nov 07 2009, 01:43PM
Arie, PC7M
Registered Member #120
Joined: Wed Apr 02 2008, 07:23PM

Posts: 2
Hello David !

In general I think you are right about 50.200 +/- is used for EME in MGM
So why suggest 50.190 as centre freq for EME?
I think most stations use a freq between 50.190 and 50.205 for EME
50.190 will look as the most used freq because of that is the freq that W7GJ usus the most. And he is, by FAR, the most active station.
So I would suggest to make the central EME (MGM) freq as 50.200 +/-
This would also adjust nicely with the MS allocation.

I agree that new adjustment to the bandplan is needed.

GL with the proposal



73 Arie / PC7M
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Sat Nov 07 2009, 01:53PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
Hi Arie - the EME crowd use between 180 and 204 in general - so 190 is about right - but lets not fight over it
Back to top
Sergio, IK0FTA
Sun Nov 08 2009, 11:22AM
Sergio, IK0FTA
Registered Member #8
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:35AM

Posts: 3
6m band it's now so wide in many country that I would like suggest to move "specialized activities" (as JT6, all digital and EME - or so -) in a separate part of the band e.g. over 50300. For me could be a great idea have cw on 50000-50100 (also cw eme); ssb+cw on 50100-50300 and rtty + digital (also digital eme) in sector 50300 to 50400 then beacons on 50400-50500. This will be a great opportunity to reduce qrm in area with hight hams density (as Europe)! In same time why don't propose a "No contests area" to prevent qrm to dx stations on band 50090-50150? I think it colud be a serius proposal not against any body and respecting all activities as: cwers, ssbers, emers, jt6ers etc ... . IMHO.

73 de Sergio, ik0fta
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Sun Nov 08 2009, 05:33PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
Hi Sergio. I can agree with most of your proposal except there is no CW EME as per higher bands. There is only digital EME ( any CW that may be done will be done either in the same portion of the band as it is done now - or will be done lower down in the Telegraphy portion) Digital EME not a big usage of the band (although there is more usage of digital on 50 MHZ nowadays - far more that SSB or CW) so to either leave it as per 50190 plus/minus - or preferably to move to 50000 to 50030 is much better. Also remember that EMErs are also using the ants on all other modes, E's F MS etc - and the performance starts to drop above 50200 in most cases - not like the higher bands. EME is not generally done in the middle of an E's opening - not will it be done in any possible F openings - so the possibility of space conflict / qrm is small.
Whether we like it or not we are dictated to by the narrow bandwidth of Aerials - all of us.
To remove beacons to higher in the band will affect us all positively and also a "No contest" area is good but :-
1) - how do we enforce moving ALL beacons to another ORG? - who has the power to stop unlicensed beacons? - nobody - only if it becomes A "Law" in 50 MHz - ALL Countries must agree and enforce - how?
2) No Contest area - again how do you make it enforceable? We also have to remember that a lot of Hams don't give a damn, don't belong to Radio Societies etc, don't read band plans - so again HOW do we enforce?
A worse case scenario would be to try and move the beacons to above say 50300 - and still have a load of beacons below 50080!! - and that will happen.
Back to EME it doesn't really matter where people QSO each other - it hasnt caused any problem in the 5 or so years that it has had a big following - its usually the ignorant, rude Hams that don't like / understand whats occurring that give the EMErs grief.
The general run of digital is used for MS ( and sometimes in the E season - and probably a lot more in the coming g F season) and so does need an agreed center of activity - but then again the chat pages are so much used by so many again it can , and does occur by agreement whenever the users want to use it.When the band is open to the US we go up to the general area of the US center of activity and quiet happily work US stations without any interference to and from SSB stations in EU
The subject for this thread is Davids want to get feedback re EME - the other proposals we have just talked about we should also respond to on the other thread pages - however as can be seen all proposals are linked.
I think it will be hard to get consensus on all of these subjects but maybe we should try and reply on each separate thread to assist David with his request.
IMHO we have all existed for a very long time - over 20 years, in EU without too much problem - the only major one in my book is the beacons problem - the rest can be lived round if we all have a little tolerance - which in the main most of us have.
IMHO
Back to top
Jay, K0GU
Sun Nov 08 2009, 06:46PM
Jay, K0GU
Registered Member #1088
Joined: Sun Nov 08 2009, 06:36PM

Posts: 1
During a good Es opening in the US stations often spread out as high as 50.225. So there will be times when this could conflict with an EME calling freq of 50190.

Digital is not allowed below 50.1 in the US so lower in the band is a moot point for the US.

I realize you are discussing the region one plan but when it comes to EME there really are no regions IMO.

FWIW

73, Jay K0GU

[ Edited Sun Nov 08 2009, 06:56PM ]
Back to top
Sergio, IK0FTA
Tue Nov 10 2009, 07:18AM
Sergio, IK0FTA
Registered Member #8
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:35AM

Posts: 3
Hi all - Sorry for use this thread about Region I Band Plane but I think that it's a "general argoument". I replied here because I was thinking that all threas are linked.
In any cases I can agree with all point of view
About EME, As Jay sed, I think that digital EME (or better DIGITAL and EME) can find a right place a bit up as now (but I think isn't a death or live question ). I think that the vy limited number of EME stations with more that 1 or 2 antennas are so limited that can be more easily move and adjust now the 10-20 existing arrays that wait until the EME activity will increase until his qsy will be really impossible.

About my proposal of "no contest area" I understand Ken dubts but I lived the Italian experience of "no contest area". For many years we have decide -to respect international hams interests- to have a "no contest area" from 50090 to 50150. It was working well because if an portion of the band is completely "contest free" (not as now how we can do intercontinental qso in all the band but not can make interregional qso in portion 50100-130) was very easily control and incourage the "newby" to move in the right place or disqualify the bad manneres (it's vy easily find a car in a empty parking and remove it ). Should be necessary some time to diffuse that rules WW but - I think - we can do it without any risk except the complains of some "scepticals".
If you're interested the experiment of "no contest area" in Italy was succesfull for ages but the italians "scepticals" wieving the european hams indifferences have required a drastic reduction of those band (now we reduced it to 100-130 only for italian national contests).

73 and have good dx! Sergio, IK0FTA
Back to top
Trev, EA5ISZ
Tue Nov 10 2009, 09:47AM
Trev, EA5ISZ

Registered Member #13
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 01:43PM

Posts: 143
I am reading this thread with interest; thanks for the input from all concerned. Not being a digital user I will restrict my comment to the subject of contests. ken, you asked how it will be possible to enforce a 'no go' area. The answer is surely to first agree the frequency limits with the contest organisers then disqualify anyone operating (giving contest exchanges) outside these limits. The caveat in brackets above will, for example, allow a contest operator to temporarily opt out of the contest to work some needed DX within the window. I am all for a common contest window if it is something we can arrange; in my opinion, it would be ideal if everyone knew that in any contest they were restricted to a fixed frequency range(s)
Back to top
Justin, G0KSC
Tue Mar 23 2010, 01:23PM
Justin, G0KSC
Registered Member #64
Joined: Thu Mar 20 2008, 04:10PM

Posts: 49
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'

'For the very few days each year where it would be nice to have a wider CW section, I wonder just how many beacons will be lost for good as a result.'

I am all for leaving things as they are. It is afteral a shared band section right?

Justin
Back to top
Go to page       >>