Return-Path: Received: from rly-db10.mx.aol.com (rly-db10.mail.aol.com [172.19.130.85]) by air-db03.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDB032-aec493975dd2f9; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:41:58 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-db10.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDB102-aec493975dd2f9; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:41:35 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1L8fc4-0004pM-PL for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:41:16 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1L8fc4-0004pD-Ah for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:41:16 +0000 Received: from smtp-out-3.talktalk.net ([62.24.128.233] helo=smtp.talktalk.net) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L8fc3-00054L-Jv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:41:16 +0000 X-Path: TTSMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwEAFsEOUlOkFqO/2dsb2JhbACCQDCBXYQmghIGxCeDBQ Received: from unknown (HELO mal769a60aa920) ([78.144.90.142]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP; 05 Dec 2008 18:41:09 +0000 Message-ID: <005801c95709$0a5aba10$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:41:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: MF ACTY Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01C95709.08FEAC80" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C95709.08FEAC80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For those interersted in MF acty, like having lots of QSO'S near and far, 16= 0 metres is the ideal band, it is only a few hundred Khz away from 600metres= . The 600m band has currenntly only 3 active amateurs in QSO mode in the UK=20= and 1 in EU plus a few in the USA., this band could not be considered an ex= perimental MF band with so few participants, compared to 160 metres.=20 Since I frequently operate both bands I am in a position to compare propagat= ion and can confirm that both are similar, the only anamoly in the UK is the= premitted power is very low on 600 and puts the operator at a disadvantage,= compared to 160. When 600m started there was not any real enthusiasm, a few tried in the earl= y days but have now emigrated to other bands and in fact can be heard freque= ntly on 160m.=20 If the permitted power in the UK was increased to around 100w erp that would= help the dedicated few but because of the reluctance of the majority of cou= ntries world wide to permit any operation on 500 the band will never really=20= get going.=20 Look what has happened to 137 khz, now virtually no acty but at its peak a f= ew years ago there was around 30 countries active. On 500 with only 3 countr= ies around EU active and 4 operators the band is Doomed.=20 If anyone knows different state your case. Stations working Beacon mode for what ever reason is not Amateur radio, more= like uncontrolled QRM generators.=20 de mal/g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C95709.08FEAC80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For those interersted in MF acty, like havi= ng lots=20 of QSO'S near and far, 160 metres is the ideal band, it is only a few hundre= d=20 Khz away from 600metres. The 600m band has currenntly only 3 active=20 amateurs in QSO mode in the UK and 1 in EU plus a few in the USA., this= =20 band could not be considered  an experimental MF band with so few=20 participants, compared to 160 metres.
Since I frequently operate both bands I am=20= in a=20 position to compare propagation and can confirm that both are similar, the o= nly=20 anamoly in the UK is the premitted power is very low on 600 and puts the=20 operator at a disadvantage, compared to 160.
When 600m started there was not any real=20 enthusiasm, a few tried in the early days but have now emigrated to other ba= nds=20 and in fact can be heard frequently on 160m.
If the permitted power in the UK was increa= sed to=20 around 100w erp that would help the dedicated few but because of the relucta= nce=20 of the majority of countries world wide to permit any operation on 500 the b= and=20 will never really get going.
Look what has happened to 137 khz, now virt= ually no=20 acty but at its peak a few years ago there was around 30 countries active. O= n=20 500 with only 3 countries around EU active and 4 operators the band is Doome= d.=20
If anyone knows different state your=20 case.
Stations working Beacon mode for what ever=20= reason=20 is not Amateur radio, more like uncontrolled QRM generators.
de mal/g3kev
 
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C95709.08FEAC80--