Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98835 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2004 14:08:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2004 14:08:53 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CZVTF-000FDS-NN for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:28:42 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.2] (helo=ptb-mxcore02.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CZVTF-000FDP-Ka for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:28:41 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1CZVA4-000JiS-H2 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:08:52 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1CZV8l-0002PZ-3s for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:07:31 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1CZV8k-0002PQ-NC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:07:30 +0000 Received: from msgdirector4.onetel.net.uk ([212.67.96.160] ident=mirapoint) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CZV8e-0008ET-EP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:07:30 +0000 Received: from mail05.onetel.net.uk (mail05.onetel.net.uk [212.67.96.157]) by msgdirector4.onetel.net.uk (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CMO32061; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:07:23 GMT Received: from mail05.onetel.net.uk (localhost.onetel.net.uk [127.0.0.1]) by mail05.onetel.net.uk (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CEG25485; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:07:20 GMT Received: from 213.78.182.231 by mail05.onetel.net.uk (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with HTTP/1.1; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:07:20 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:07:20 GMT From: Brian G3YKB To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Mailer: Webmail Mirapoint Direct 3.4.6-GR MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <66a845f1.a7e52307.832da00@mail05.onetel.net.uk> X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 212.67.96.160 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of onetel.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no, Subject: Re: LF: Linear modes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Hi All Sorry if this lengthy message is a bit controversial but I feel I ought to comment on some of Mal's statements: >Normal RTTY would not be acceptable on LF this has >been discussed many times before. As a newcomer to the band (only 18 months of listening and reading the Reflector) I guess I have missed all the discussions re LF RTTY. However, what I can contribute is the (perhaps obvious) observation that the band seems to be extremely underused - was it always like this? Even at "peak" times I have not seen any more than 300 Hz of the 2100 Hz in use. >I would suggest that those interested in LF should >learn CW. This mode is more likely to attract new >users on LF. I know of two new LF operators who don't want to use CW and I suspect there are a LOT more who would be interested if there was an alternative to learning morse. Remember that in the past 18 months, many thousands of "code-free" amateurs across Europe have been given access to LF & HF. The fact that they did not learn morse to give them access to all the HF bands indicates to me that CW would be a DETERRENT rather than an attraction! >Data modes are useful if there is a large volume >of traffic to move between stations. Agreed - things like describing station equipment, exchanging ideas and experiences.... >The average radio amateur only exchanges Name, >QTH, and QSA/QRK I guess I'm not average! I prefer a longer conversation. I would venture to say that LF operators are FAR from average. LF is one of the few bands where you can be fairly sure that the chap (or chappess) at the other end has had to assemble much of his equipment and aerials rather than just write a cheque. So, in the absence of a narrow-band medium-speed keyboard mode that can be transmitted through a non-linear amplifier, is it time to review how we make best use of our 2.1 kHz ?? Regards Brian G3YKB