Message-ID: <50D314FF.8060504@psk31.plus.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:39:11 +0000
From: g3zjo <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <001e01cddea6$9598aa00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <50D2FB08.3000704@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <003401cddea9$2d337a00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <50D308C8.7090202@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To: <50D308C8.7090202@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: LF: NOV 472
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------090402040202040209090603"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090402040202040209090603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Stefan

I bet there was no confusion over dates with your notifications, I bet 
the UK makes you smile.

I applied yesterday before the link went down and actually applied twice 
because the Submit Application button returned a message 'you have 
decided to save as a PDF'. The second submission said 'Application 
Rejected, NOV already applied for for this call sign'. However I 
received no NOV so I have just applied for the third time, no rejection 
as duplicate / triplicate and the NOV has arrived. Third time lucky.

The dating is ambiguous, and contradicts the Ofcom announcement.

Date of issue of this Variation: 20 December 2012
Date of expiry of this Variation: 20 December 2017

But I must agree with Mal if the variation is issued today and expires 
on 20th Dec 2017 it would seem to be valid as of now, if they have 
decided to give a little early pressy why don't they say so.


73 Eddie G3ZJO


On 20/12/2012 12:47, Stefan Schäfer wrote:
> Yes, if the 20th is stated, then just use it from now on. No one will 
> care or even complain. And no one seriously expects trouble.
>
> 472.5 is not a good frequency. There is a permanent QRM signal there, 
> observed/confirmed by several stations (such as DL4YHF). Thus we 
> prefer 472.2 or 472.8 in recent times. However some stations still 
> stick to 472.5, which is not a good choice.
>
> Last night i added a variometer part for the MF coil. This covers 
> 449...482kHz now, which is suboptimal. Let me spend some time to 
> optimise the adjustable range.
>
> CUL, Stefan
>
> Am 20.12.2012 12:57, schrieb mal hamilton:
>> Stefan
>> as far as I am concerned it is effective from now.
>> Check 472.5 Khz now
>> de mal/g3kev
>>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5971 - Release Date: 12/19/12
>


--------------090402040202040209090603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi Stefan<br>
    <br>
    I bet there was no confusion over dates with your notifications, I
    bet the UK makes you smile.<br>
    <br>
    I applied yesterday before the link went down and actually applied
    twice because the Submit Application button returned a message 'you
    have decided to save as a PDF'. The second submission said
    'Application Rejected, NOV already applied for for this call sign'.
    However I received no NOV so I have just applied for the third time,
    no rejection as duplicate / triplicate and the NOV has arrived.
    Third time lucky.<br>
    <br>
    The dating is ambiguous, and contradicts the Ofcom announcement.<br>
    &nbsp;<br>
    Date of issue of this Variation: 20 December 2012<br>
    Date of expiry of this Variation: 20 December 2017<br>
    <br>
    But I must agree with Mal if the variation is issued today and
    expires on 20th Dec 2017 it would seem to be valid as of now, if
    they have decided to give a little early pressy why don't they say
    so.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    73 Eddie G3ZJO<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    On 20/12/2012 12:47, Stefan Sch&auml;fer wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:50D308C8.7090202@iup.uni-heidelberg.de"
      type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
        http-equiv="Content-Type">
      Yes, if the 20th is stated, then just use it from now on. No one
      will
      care or even complain. And no one seriously expects trouble.<br>
      <br>
      472.5 is not a good frequency. There is a permanent QRM signal
      there,
      observed/confirmed by several stations (such as DL4YHF). Thus we
      prefer
      472.2 or 472.8 in recent times. However some stations still stick
      to
      472.5, which is not a good choice.<br>
      <br>
      Last night i added a variometer part for the MF coil. This covers
      449...482kHz now, which is suboptimal. Let me spend some time to
      optimise the adjustable range.<br>
      <br>
      CUL, Stefan<br>
      <br>
      Am 20.12.2012 12:57, schrieb mal hamilton:
      <blockquote
        cite="mid:003401cddea9$2d337a00$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf"
        type="cite">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
          charset=ISO-8859-1">
        <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name="GENERATOR">
        <div><font face="Arial">Stefan </font></div>
        <div><font face="Arial">as far as I am concerned it is effective
            from
            now.</font></div>
        <div><font face="Arial">Check 472.5 Khz now</font></div>
        <div><font face="Arial">de mal/g3kev</font></div>
        <div>&nbsp;</div>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <p class="" avgcert""="" color="#000000" align="left">No virus
        found in this message.<br>
        Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
        Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5971 - Release Date:
        12/19/12</p>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------090402040202040209090603--