Message-ID: <005701bf2401$60427ac0$8aeb869f@beachwood.tinet.ie>
From: "Finbar O'Connor" <beachwood@tinet.ie>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: re: 500khz
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:38:07 -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>

Hi  Hans-Joachim,
                           I do not disagree with your power level for WCC
and WSL,  I  was just  commenting on the sheer power level used by these
stations, compared to the ususal  1 kw  transmitters used at coast radio
stations. The 1996  Admiralty List of Radio Signals  Volume 1,  notes the
high power used by WCC and WSL.  Many a time our own 1 kw transmitters had
sunk to 500 watts, before  a new pair of output valves were fitted, but we
still managed to cover  well out into the Atlantic by day and night.
Very best regards
Finbar   EI0CF    EJM
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans-Joachim Brandt <hajo.brandt.dj1zb@t-online.de>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: 01 November 1999 00:15
Subject: Re: LF: re: 500khz


Dear Finbar et AL;

THE POWER OF WCC and WSL I have taken from a 1959 list of coast and ship
stations, volume 1, coast stations.

Concerning a medium wave band, as stated on another occasion (DK8KWs medium
wave tx), we should choose a frequency sufficiently far from the 450 kHz to
468
kHz I.F. range of receivers, therefore I had pleaded for 410 kHz (or
somewhat
higher).

73 Ha-Jo, DJ1ZB

Stations like
>  Chatham  WCC and Amaganset WSL, were mentioned, but their power levels
were
>  exceptional, just imagine   30-40 kw, a bit over the top , and to be
quite
>  honest, their signals never struck me as being that much more potent than
>  the rest.

How about a new  band around      440 khz.  After  136 khz it would be  a
>  breeze.
>
> 73   Finbar      EI0CF       EJM
>
>