Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20011016084248.2b0f05d6@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:42:48
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Repeaters
In-reply-to: <3BCB18E9.B3067E26@netscapeonline.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

At 18:12 15/10/01 +0100, G3KEV wrote:
>I hope those using such a system including  our friend in Canada who
>confesses to using vhf/uhf links for LF and HF linking does not claim
>any AWARDS. I hope the recent transatlantic claims do not include any
>linking of any kind but genuine contacts on the 136 khz band from the
>home qth, where the LF tx/rx is located.

Dear Mal,

Maybe I'm just too simple minded, but I don't get this. 
I know lots of VHF/UHF operators having their antennas tens or hundreds of
wavelengths away from their shack, high up in the air while the TX is in
the cellar. TX and antenna are connected via a coax cable, just because
this is the most conveniant way, but a RX pre-amp and even the TX PA are
located near the antenna. Nobody ever complained about this as unfair.
And now we have someone with a additional antenna at no more than a few
wavelengths from his receiver. Probably nobody would feel this is unfair if
the chap would run a 5km long coax from the antenna to the shack (maybe
most of us would just consider it a bit stupid), but the moment the
'material' coax is replaced by an 'immaterial' UHF link it all would become
faul play ?
For some misterious reason it seems to be OK to 'think big' when it comes
to putting a strong signal in the air, but not when it comes to picking up
weak signals out of the air.
I don't understand what is unfair about this, but maybe someone can
enlighten me.

73, Rik  ON7YD