Message-ID: <002801c0ffb7$53bf06e0$050e7bd5@dave>
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <005d01c0fe76$e6a457e0$ad2c1bd4@rci> <3B397DCB.F87B6FD3@alg.demon.co.uk> <000601c0feee$ef663ba0$0100a8c0@home> <3B3A3EAC.EFB6008C@alg.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LF: freq: monitor ??
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:38:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

>From Dave G3YMC

Steve GW4ALG wrote:
>it is true that QRP might result in disappointment - although
>this probably depends upon expectations.  However, my first tests
>on 136 kHz were actually conducted using quite low power.  (I
>completed my first 136 kHz CW QSO with Graham G3XTZ over a
>distance of 157 km using 15 watts RF.  At the time, I was using a
>very poor single-turn loop antenna: tuned by very lossy
>capacitors; and fed by a very lossy balun.  But it was a start.
>For me, QRO and better antennas came later.)

I would endorse Steve's comments.  Obviously those who run several hundred watts into
a big antenna make a bigger impression on the band.  Others like me have shown that
it is still possible to have much pleasure on the band with much lower powers and
modest antennas.  I have worked very much further than across town with my 35W and a
loop, and nobody should be put off getting on the band because they cannot afford or
do not have access to QRO resources.  May be a bit different in the remote parts of
France though.

I am currently invesigating a vertical antenna at my impossible qth, however at the
moment it seems to be an evaluation exercise as to how 'impossible' the qth is!!

73s Dave G3YMC
dsergeant@iee.org
dsergeant@btinternet.com
http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk