The math is all fine and dandy , but WHY pick a frequency close to the beacons? That's where all the logic fails! There is a large chunk of relatively little used frequencies on both sides of the beacon frequency. For argument's sake why not make the guard frequency +/- 3 khz? why not clump the ALE frequencies closer together since they reflect (usually) the state of the art , or at least "modern" equipment since computer control is required?
The only redeeming virtue is that ALE operators spend much of their time arguing and discussing ALE on email rather than on the air. For the past few days I have been sitting on 14109.5, testing (playing with) Patrick's new 141A mode. Basically have been monitoring from about 1300Z to 0000Z, since I have also been working on a consulting project on another computer in the office. The only things I've heard are other folks playing with the same mode, no soundings etc etc from the ALE folks. This is a good thing, since they are so determined to potentially QRM the beacon frequency, the incidence may be fairly low. :) John VE5MU ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband > Now now, play nice. > > > At 10:15 PM 2/22/2007, you wrote: > >In other words Tony, despite decades of tradition of having the CW beacons on 14100, the ALE users don't give a rat's butt for anyone except a small number > >of ALE users. > > > >and the only reason they are doing this is because they can. > > > >John > >VE5MU > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 - Release Date: 2/22/2007 11:55 AM > >
