Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24414 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 22:46:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by teachers.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 4 Apr 2000 22:46:26 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12cbwi-0001Mb-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:37:16 +0100 Received: from smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net ([199.45.39.157]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12cbwh-0001MU-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:37:15 +0100 Received: from bellatlantic.net (client-151-200-111-146.bellatlantic.net [151.200.111.146]) by smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA08847; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:36:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <38EA6EC3.F690A211@bellatlantic.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:37:55 -0400 From: "Andre' Kesteloot" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, "lf-amrad" Subject: LF: Re: re-inventing References: <38E8CAB4.47F7F568@netscapeonline.co.uk> <38E90FC3.38DF@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: > g3kev wrote: > > > > LF techniques covering every aspect have been documented over the years > > and while some purport to be inventing new methods they are really > > copying what has gone before. The broadcast industry has covered it in > > great depth and the various Government Agencies have also perfected the > > two way communications aspect especially narrow band methods. It seems > > the majority interested in LF do not realise this and think they are a > > first. > In fact, various government agencies (European Broadcasting services, US Navy, etc.) have indeed been involved in LF transmissions for many years. We should keep in mind, however, that those entities are above all interested in _reliable_ coverage and hence, tend to use as large a hammer as they can possibly find to drive down that nail, i.e., Radio Luxemburg and France Inter=2 megawatts, and see also our AMRAD website (http://www.amrad.org/projects/lf) for details and photographs of the now defunct NSS US Navy site at Annapolis,Maryland. We, amateur radio operators, are not necessarily interested in 24 hours/day coverage, and a QSO from time to time can be very satisfying. Hence, ground wave is not necessarily the only way to go, and once we start using skywave and QRSS, I am fairly sure that the above mentioned Government Agencies have little experience in those domains, mainly, again, because of unreliability or low throughput. But surely, that may be, for some of us, where the fun lies ? Finally, the ARRL Handbook has been printing since the 1920's a statement to the effect that "(The Radio) Amateur is Gentlemanly". I, for one, would not like to see this LF Forum, populated by a bunch of old friends, becoming a place where what sometimes sounds to me like ex cathedra statements are made and barbs exchanged. 73 Andre' N4ICK