David and Justine Olsen davejust at bigpond.net.au
Sun Mar 29 09:19:47 EST 2009


I agree more coverage is needed but still believe 14 MHz is not the  
best choice for propagation when you consider who is most likely to  
use HF APRS for position reporting.. The stations that use HF APRS  
tend to be away from the VHF services, generally in more remote areas  
of the country, often on holiday. Given this and the nature of HF  
propagation meaning position reports are less often received by  
gates, most people traveling and using HF APRS in remote areas would  
be happy if position reports were available for them morning and  
afternoon, perhaps indicating where they camped.

I've looked at propagation predictions for current ionosphere's and  
conclude 14 MHz gives poor coverage of these remoter areas.

See my blog comments here -http://www.blognow.com.au/vk4mdx/131710/ 

However, I agree with Ray that more gates on the more frequencies  
would be great.

David VK4MDX

On 29 Mar 2009, at 06:15, Rob wrote:

> Hi All been looking at the IPS web site
> http://www.ips.gov.au/HF_Systems/1/1/2  for a ZL VK HF system I  
> think we
> would be better on 14 MHz if you look at what band gives the most
> propagation and assuming most mobile stations are on the move  
> during day
> light hours. This band also is better for HF data reception  
> introducing less
> phase distortion to the received signal.
> What we need is a VK6 station a VK4/3 and a ZL one 3 gateways would  
> give us
> good coverage and if we have 3 more in the same area on 7MHz then  
> we will
> have close to 90% coverage. You need to remember this is not a static
> situation and as the Sun spot numbers increase we need to move the
> frequencies up
> Regards Rob ZL3RX
> _______________________________________________
> Ozaprs mailing list
> Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
> http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs

Ozaprs mailing list
Ozaprs at aprs.net.au

More information about the Ozaprs mailing list