Message-ID: <002a01c16779$07ec1260$4154073e@dave>
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <001d01c1669d$88e210e0$07137bd5@dave> <002001c166b1$89a4ad80$d1a4153e@w8k3f0> <UoKTRIAiMF67EwU5@jalowe.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: G8RW - information
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:52:39 -0000
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>

G3XZX wrote:
>I had a QSO this evening with Bob G8RW on 1.8 MHz cw, and he gave the
>reason for giving up 136 kHz as severe QRM from his neighbour's cable
>TV.

Bob's local QRM is obviously one of the reasons in his decision, but those of you who
have worked him over the past few weeks will know that he had largely solved that
with the help of a noise canceller.  I understand (though I have not spoken to him
direct) that the final straw was the appearance of various test transmissions
subsequent to MB7LF's establishment.  I suspect Bob is far too polite a chap to
have mentioned this reason on the air.  I also suspect that Bob would not be
interested in making any QSOs with the aid of a relay.

Please note these are not my own views, but the situation as I understand it.  It is
rather interesting to note that many of the early operators on 136 were ex top band
operators.  It seems most of these have now returned there.

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