Message-ID: <008401c118ca$a21db1c0$dd32073e@dave>
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <+FZB9BAk27Y7Ewjt@telemetry.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: 136 dead band.
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:36:52 +0100
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>

>From Dave G3YMC
Tom G3OLB wrote:
<Come on you lot let's have some activity on 136!

As one of the 'listeners' Tom referred to with his cw announcement to the same effect
on 136 around 0715z on Sunday, I ought to comment.  Of course I am aware that Tom at
present doesn't copy my signals at the moment (but see below!), and also in that as
he hadn't responded to my earlier CQs, I can perhaps be forgiven.  The fact remains
however that activity on the band does appear to be at a lower level than at the same
period last year, and even lower than the year below, and there does appear to be a
gradual decline.  At the same time there are other factors - thunder static made the
band unusable for long periods last week, and I was rather surprised to find a total
absence of it yesterday morning (as is also the case this morning).  That, coupled
with the qrm problems currently being suffered by G8RW and others, and a few doing
73kHz transmissions (I noted you were listening there as well Tom!!) could explain it
to some extent.  Personally I would appreciate more activity between 0600-0800z (or
earlier) at the weekend, but appreciate this is early for some, and I am never on the
band on Sundays between 1000 and 1300 local because of Church committments.  But I
did have a qso with GW4ALG.

The subject of encouraging more activity at weekends to attract newcomers to the band
was of course discussed at some length earlier in the year - perhaps the suggestions
at that time have failed in their objectives.

SM6PXJ wrote:
>When I listened on the transmitting antenna there was *no* sign of Tom but on the
loop
>he was QRK 3-4

As most of you know, I have been using a loop antenna for transmit/receive for
several years (see my web site) - this is much bigger than the likes of the G3LNP
loop with a circumference of 100ft.  I am now experimenting with a vertical, a loaded
Butternut vertical 30ft high.  It is rather interesting to note that apart from Tom's
signal, who is in a null of my loop and is much stronger on the vertical, without
exception all other signals are a similar strength on the vertical.  However the
noise level on the vertical is higher, which means that in all cases copy is much
better on the loop - the difference is in fact quite spectacular.  I have been saying
for a long time that loops make excellent receive antennas, this has convinced me. I
have not been able to check the relative performance in its other null, due to the
lack of activity from the continent, in particular PA0.  It is worth remembering that
the same may not apply to smaller loop antennas of 1-2m square, where the received
signal is lower and the signal to noise ratio advantage may be less.

I have one or two changes still to do to the transmitter before I can use the
vertical on transmit, but hope that will be soon. Perhaps I will then be able to work
Tom!!

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