Message-ID: <004b01c478e2$011c7240$5eeafc3e@l8p8y6>
From: "hamilton mal" <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <016901c47a00$8579d7c0$af32f7c2@johnb5a82ea1a4>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:31:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: CW and other modes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rabson" <word.factory@zetnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:49 AM
Subject: LF: CW and other modes


> A few thoughts on why we are doing this:
>
> It seems well established that, if you (i) have enough real estate to put
up
> a mast or masts of useful height and install a good earthing system and
(ii)
> live in a quiet location, it is relatively easy to work interesting
> distances using hand-speed CW.  I believe Mal has shown this.
>
> For many of us, none of the above desirable conditions obtains, but by
> collaborating with one another we have accumulated a body of knowledge of
> various techniques which enable us to make a better job of communicating
in
> unpromising circumstances.  People have worked distances which, when our
LF
> allocations were first released, seemed impossible.  If we had been able
to
> borrow a redundant antenna at GBR, working across the Atlantic with it
would
> have been a fine achievement but it would not have been anything like as
> great an achievement as doing so from a domestic garden.
>
> I feel we should avoid becoming obsessed with DX in the sense of distance.
> The abbreviation also has a connotation of difficulty.  As people may be
> aware, my main interest in LF is for underground communications. I would
be
> delighted if I could work through two or three kilometres of limestone on
> 136 or 87kHz (the latter being a common cave radio frequency) using SSB.
> Currently we have achieved something like half that.
>
> We should not decry technical aids such as computers. Sometimes they make
> things possible which otherwise just cannot be done. People doing
> moon-bounce or meteor-scatter seem happy to use such things (it is a long
> time since I heard complaints about people using high-speed tape recorders
> when working MS).  Why should such devices be unacceptable at LF?
>
> Finally, for those who feel that we have reached a dead end, may I suggest
a
> challenge?
>
> Analogue speech transmission in the form of single sideband has been used
in
> the amateur service for more than 50 years.  It is time we found something
> that is less greedy of bandwidth, preferably something that would work
> within a 100Hz channel so as to allow amateurs whose LF licenses limit
their
> bandwidth to take part.

I doubt is there is anything available or in the pipe line to beat CW when
it comes to B/Width and conveying a message the most economical way.
>
> 73
> John G3PAI
>
>
>