Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7532 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2001 00:48:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2001 00:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 22122 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2001 00:48:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 18 Oct 2001 00:48:10 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 15u1I9-0004dj-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:44:09 +0100 Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.176] helo=protactinium) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 15u1I7-0004de-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:44:08 +0100 Received: from [213.122.89.114] (helo=j1r9b7) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15u1HS-0006IH-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:43:27 +0100 Message-ID: <003501c1576c$29fe4a20$72597ad5@j1r9b7> From: "Derek Atter" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <200110170241_MC3-E390-116D@compuserve.com> Subject: LF: Re: MB7LF Remote receiver relay Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:30:21 +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 5.00.2919.6600 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: >From Derek Atter G3GRO, Many thanks for the many messages of support received via the LF Reflector and also for the support given at the well attended sessions of the LF Forum at the recent HF/LF Convention at Windsor regarding the establishment of the remote receiver system GB7LF. I regret that one or two LF operators have expressed objection to the basic idea of the LF relay. The derogatory response from G3KEV was predictable and about par for the course and is just one more in a long line of similar outbursts. I was however more sorry to read the views expressed by Steve GW4ALG and Dave G3YMC with whom I have had many a enjoyable QSO. I hope perhaps Steve you will on reflection not say farewell yet to the LF bands - that would be such a pity. The 136kHz band can ill aford to lose such an active operator and experimenter. To clarify things would like to emphasise the following points : (1) The system should not be regarded in the same light as a 2m FM repeater. It is an experiment to provide a remote receiver whose main function is to overcome the problems of local noise and not to act as an intermediate repeater intended to extend the range coverage. A second objective is to encourage more interest in LF activity locally and there are already signs that members of other clubs have started monitoring activity on 136kHz via the relay receiver. The fear that somehow this will encourage more "black box" operation seems to me to be irrelevant since most of us use commercial receivers already and a 136kHz transmitter and antenna system is still needed to make a QSO. We did not have in mind its use in achieving awards or records when establishing the remote receiver but to avoid any confusion as to the signal path, we will be encouraging the practice of adding "RX via MB7LF" to outgoing signal reports on 136kHz. (2) The licence is held by the RSGB and delegated by them to the relay keeper. At the end of the first year of operation we will review it and if the general consensus of LF operators (perhaps after discussion at the next HF Convention) is that it is not a good thing, then we will shut it down. (3) The system is not yet optimised since it was put together in a very short time in order to support the LF special event station MB2HFC at the HF Convention at Windsor. As has been said elsewhere on the reflector, without its use it would not have been possible to operate a viable demonstration station as was found last year due to the local noise level. Or should we have just sat on our hands and missed the opportunity to encourage more LF interest among a wider audience? We opted to use initially an active antenna with only a 1.2m whip only 30ft AGL operating in conjunction a fixed loop to null out Loran to demonstrate the potential of active receiving antennas in support of the talk by Andre' N1ICK on the AMRAD antenna. Although the antenna system maybe not yet be optimised, it was clearly working reasonably well since we managed to work as far as Finbar EI0CF at Malin Head at the northern tip of Eire and down to F6BWO in the opposite direction in Chaumont, SE of Paris, both being in the region of 600km distance. As part of the experiment it is planned in future as an alternative to the active antenna, to patch in to the Crawley Club 360ft inverted "L" antenna which is up at around 60ft AGL. We also plan to experiment with a very long terminated half-loop antenna similar to that being currently being used so successfully by Laurie G3AQC pointed at Lessay to null out Loran. Finally, it's early days yet. We believe that the project is in the amateur tradition of experiment as several of the mesages posted on the reflector have already said. We would also like to pay tribute to the UK Radio Licensing Authority and the RSGB for the speed with which they processed the licence application and their helpful comments on the way Vy 73, de Derek Atter G3GRO