Message-ID: <38DA754A.7DDA731A@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:49:30 +0000
From: "g3kev" <g3kev@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: 73kHz Cross - band QSO's
References: <11119.200003231501@gemini>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>


James Moritz wrote:

> Dear LF group,
>         Sent CQ's on 71.81 for cross-band QSO's from 2030 - 2250
> last night, and from 0600 - 0815 this morning, but no replies that I
> could detect. Did see G4GVC on 71.7 or therabouts, with a just-
> about audible QRSS signal. Also saw G3AQC and DF6NM on
> 137.7. The noise level on 136kHz seemed to rise quite sharply
> after about 2200, and fall quite sharply at about 0730.
>
> I will be sticking to my 71.81kHz 'channel' for the time being; the
> balance of response has been in favour of this, especially since
> 71.82 is already being used by G3XTZ! Of course, I can always
> use a different frequency if requested, no problem.
>
> In response to some of Mal's points, I was using a Maplin MOSFET
> audio amp as a PA until recently - it produced about 100W
> perfectly reliably, but I had to modify it to increase slew rate in
> order to get full output on 136, and also improve the heatsinking; it
> wasn't very efficient, requiring well over 200W DC input.
>
> As for 120ft verticals, well, yes please!
>
> Using the same, small, antenna as usual, my best DX QSO has
> been OH1TN with normal CW on 136 kHz, but I have not managed
> to reach him yet on 73kHz using QRSS CW.In theory, a given
> antenna ought to be about 6dB less efficient on 73kHz compared to
> 136kHz, and the natural noise level is higher by about 6dB too, so
> DX contacts are unlikely ever to be easier on the lower band, in
> spite of reduced ground wave losses. Certainly, the stations local
> to me are much weaker signals on 73kHz than they are on 136kHz.
> But the special circumstances on 73kHz at the moment are that the
> noise level in the UK is extremely high due to the Rugby
> transmitter, whereas in Europe this is not so much of a problem,
> judging by the spectrogram screen shots that have been posted.
> Because of this, it is sometimes easier to receive a 73kHz signal
> outside the UK than it is over a short distance. I don't see why
> ionospheric propagation should not play a part on 73kHz; obviously
> there has not been much opportunity to investigate this.
>
> I had a nice cross-band QSO with PA0SE last time Rugby was off
> the air, using normal CW; I think we both gave each other 559 or
> 569 reports - copy was certainly no problem. It would be good if
> Mal could activate his GI3KEV station for the next 'first Tuesday' -
> assuming of course that Rugby does go off air again, G - GI cross-
> band QSO's ought to be quite possible with normal CW, as
> possibly other countries too.

Recently some are getting carried away with a mathematical/theory
approach instead of getting out into the field and putting the theory
into practice. You will notice a big difference in REALITY.
I have noticed in every case of theory observations put forward recently
that the conclusion is ALWAYS, could be anything between 6 db and 10 db
out !!!!!!!!
Perhaps some do not realise the significance. It means that in reality
the sums could be out be KILOWATTS. IE 100 watts or maybe 400 watts(6db)
or maybe 1KW (10db).
Theory/mathematics puts one in the parking area but in REALITY it is the
practicality of the idea that achieves the object. Get outside, get the
tower and antenna up in the air and check your results.
Small gardens are no excuse, a 100 ft vertical takes up very little
space, and gives the neighbours something to talk about.

I do not intend to work xband 73/136 khz from GI or elswhere. If I was
sufficiently interested I would get a NOV for 73 and with my antenna
systems and normal CW I would try to achieve some new records. If the
band was an International allocation I would be interested .
At times when I have listened on 73 khz, I use my 160m inv L antenna 80
ft vertical and 250 ft horizontal resonated for 73 khz, this is a
separate antenna on a different tower  from my 100 ft system for 136 khz.
The signals heard on 73 khz are very strong s5 to s9 normally, so I
cannot understand why qrss is necessary. Although the Rugby tx is strong
here, it does not have any splatter and the 73 khz band is even quiter
than 136 khz.
G3KEV


>
> I think it's important we all do as much with 73kHz as possible in
> the time there is available - after all, if we ever try to get new
> bands allocated, or stop existing ones going to other users, we
> won't get much sympathy from the powers-that-be if they have the
> impression the bandwidth won't be utilised. Perhaps a cross-band,
> QRSS contact is not ideal as a form of communications, but it is a
> lot more interesting and challenging than nothing.
>
> I intend to be QRV on 73kHz again on Friday night and over the
> weekend; hope to see you there.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU