Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <0XiubvEt5EsGFwk5@g3xaq.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:12:13 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: Alan Ibbetson <alan@g3xaq.demon.co.uk>
References: <006b01c7d3ba$78370d00$0300a8c0@lark>
In-Reply-To: <006b01c7d3ba$78370d00$0300a8c0@lark>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.04-S (<7ZpEZ1eeE9Ulka1sdEdXKvpuS1>)
Subject: Re: LF: 500 Permit Allocation conditions
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

In message <006b01c7d3ba$78370d00$0300a8c0@lark>, Alan Melia 
<alan.melia@btinternet.com> writes
>You could be sinking
>a awfull lot of work by several people to get this allocation at
>all.....dont mess it up !

and In message <004301c7d3c7$5515e780$fd1a7ad5@w4o8m9>, James Moritz 
<james.moritz@btopenworld.com> writes
>any QSOs resulting should probably be considered a spin-off of the
>experimental activity.

My NoV application specifically mentioned "assessing the communications 
effectiveness of electrically small aerials in a domestic garden". I 
expected to engage in two way QSOs with a significant number of stations 
"to compliment the work I am already undertaking in the field of HF low 
power communication".

I've got as far as I feel able, within the constraints of low QSO 
activity, so I am leaving the band free for those more worthy than I. 
I've put my 500K transmitter on the shelf and will reconfigure my 
inverted-L for top band when I next crank the tower down. I'll 
unsubscribe from this list now, to save bandwidth on blacksheep.org.

Back to building my 30 watt homebrew 80M superhet CW transceiver in a 
2x4x4 inch box...
-- 

Cheers,

Alan G3XAQ
alan@g3xaq.demon.co.uk