Message-ID: <001201c97c7d$567e6510$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <008c01c97bf2$2ec4eed0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> <D86D53D70918451BBC580D8F5BF0EDAF@JimPC> <200901221032120654.25A24C20@smtp.wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:36:51 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


John
Loran is audible here but not a real problem. The biggest problem is the 
regular bursts of data at both ends of the 136 khz allocation.. With large 
antennas the received bursts are extremely strong especially when listening 
at the band edges where most of the QRS acty is located. ie 137.778 and 
136.315.
142 - 145.5 khz is clear in Scarborough and possibly other slots, in the 
meantime its battle on hi
mal/g3kev

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John RABSON" <john.rabson@wanadoo.fr>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137


If I recall correctly, in the early days of negotiation with the 
Radiocommunications Agency in the UK, it was originally suggested that the 
RSGB should apply for an allocation round about 173 kHz with 5W ERP (to line 
up with the ZL allocation?).  Time went by and we were asked for our views 
on an allocation around 88 kHz.  That idea was then withdrawn as that 
frequency was already in use by another service (it was and still is used 
with induction systems for cave communications on 87 kHz USB).

Eventually we got 73 kHz.

Mal says "several khz up or down the band from 137 it is clear".  Not here 
it isn't.  And if he, in Yorkshire, is unaffected by Loran he is very lucky.

John F5VLF
JN17vg


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 21/01/2009 at 19:25 James Moritz wrote:

>Dear Mal, LF Group,
>
>I don't know... but it was probably the same as the reason for which the
>73kHz band was withdrawn at about the same time that all the utilities
>which
>had been operating inside or near that part of the spectrum were
>decomissioned ;-)
>
>Cheers, Jim Moritz
>73 de M0BMU
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
>To: "rsgb" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:00 PM
>Subject: LF: 137
>
>
>Does anyone know why 137 khz was chosen as an amateur allocation, in that
>freq area it is the most polluted part, clobbered at both ends by
>commercial
>high power transmitters...








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1908 - Release Date: 1/21/2009 
9:15 PM