Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:50:28 +0100
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
In-Reply-To: <002601c93fef$2556f800$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
References: <007b01c93f60$25e16ab0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
 <49120F1F.2040000@yahoo.com>
 <002601c93fef$2556f800$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20081106095023.0E3DD31E703@smtps01.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Re: LF: QSO MODE
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


At 10:07 6/11/2008, you wrote:
>I thought amateur radio was about exchanging information in real 
>time by sitting at a radio.
>Others think beacons and email or telephone reporting is amateur 
>radio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>It is difficult to justify the continued allocation of 500 khz  to 
>the radio amateur service.
>G3KEV

Mal,

I was involved in the process of getting a 500kHz allocation in Belgium.
I can tell you that "exchanging information in real time by sitting 
at a radio" was not an argument to get this allocation.
Why would we need 500kHz to do that, we already have plenty of other 
frequencies where we can make QSO's.
We asked for a 500kHz allocation (and got it) because:
- it gives us the opportunity to study the propagation in the lower MF range
- it gives us the opportunity to develop small antennas and optimize 
their efficiency
- it gives us the opportunity to develop and test new transmission 
modes adapted to QRN/QRM levels and limited output power on this specific band

Bottom line: there is nothing wrong with making QSO's on 500kHz, but 
it is not the main reason for our presence here.
Whenever we have to justify the 500 kHz allocation facts like G3XIZ's 
beacon transmission being copied by W1TAG will count, not the number 
of G-stations worked by G3KEV.

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T




Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm