Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2110 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2002 10:57:02 -0000 Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225) by mailstore with SMTP; 20 Jul 2002 10:57:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 22168 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2002 10:56:19 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 20 Jul 2002 10:56:16 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17VrmW-0004s4-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:48:12 +0100 Received: from mta5-svc.business.ntl.com ([62.253.164.45]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17VrmW-0004rz-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:48:12 +0100 Received: from roy ([80.1.17.53]) by mta5-svc.business.ntl.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020720104752.JSMQ26791.mta5-svc.business.ntl.com@roy> for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:47:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c22fdb$02264140$0100000a@roy> From: "HighGain" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3D3805CB.78D558B0@diolog.de> Subject: Re: LF: test Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:48:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi dear Fabian, > I don 't see the point. Consequently you shouldn' t use e-Mail to get in > touch with other amateurs but only CW. > You are entitled to your opinion Fabian. But come on who are they trying > to kid? The submission for awards cups and medals etc with highly controversial logs from contacts > made! ( Both here in the UK & also over the pond ) When we TRY TO CALCULATE how much ERP is being > radiated from certain individuals? And not getting the calculation's like anywhere accurate or > correct? combined with the efficiency of there Ant System for the desired Freq. ( Only a very few OPS > have this type of Efficient Antenna in use for LF ). Then the rest have absolutely not a chance of making a > contact genuinely over these distances and paths considering what very few have achieved genuinely **** > ONLY BY THE SKIN OF THERE TEETH & A BIT OF LUCK **** So these some what very much smaller and > much less powerful and efficient stations had no chance of having made these so-called Trans > Atlantic contacts.... Hmmm very dubious and conspicuous. Just read between the lines Fabian, you do > not have to be a technical whiz to work that out! > Running more than 1 W ERP with excessive power is nothing to be proud of. > Neither are making false log entry's for Trans-Atlantic Awards Fabian! > But Hams are supposed to use or at least to experiment with modern > techniques as well ; we cannot > ignore the new developments, and if we did, HAM radio would be dead in a > few years.. > Yes I quite agree with this 1st statement Fabian. That Amateur Radio ops > now have never been so active > in experimental new Digital modes and techniques. What I completely > dismiss as absolute poppy-coc > is that Amateur Radio will be dead in a few years ( The complete reverse > is the truth officially ). Never > in the history of Amateur Radio has there been such a huge influx of new > Licence holders both young > and old a-like. And with the advent of the recent Global ARIU changes this > is set to be the continuing > trend Fabian ( And long may it continue ). Regards & Best Wishes Roy GM0PYC ************ THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE ************ Somewhere! Regards & Best Wishes Roy