Message-ID: <3BCF08F9.43B4E5C8@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:53:13 +0100
From: "gii3kev" <gii3kev@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: MB7LF Remote receiver relay
References: <200110170241_MC3-E390-116D@compuserve.com> <003501c1576c$29fe4a20$72597ad5@j1r9b7>
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>


Derek Atter wrote:

> >From Derek Atter G3GRO,
>
> Many thanks for the many messages of support received via the LF Reflector
> and also for the support given at the well attended sessions of the LF Forum
> at the recent HF/LF  Convention at Windsor regarding the establishment of
> the remote receiver system GB7LF.
>
> I regret that one or two LF operators

Actually 3 according to this message disagree.

Currently if you count the number of LF operators ACTIVE on 136 khz and 73 khz
from the UK this represents nearly 50 percent that disagree with vhf/uhf
linking. Seeing the other mans point of view I can see what you are doing but
who can tell if someone in the South of England within ear shot of the vhf link
works DX actually heard the dx direct on LF or via the vhf RX REMOTE LINK. This
could encourage cheating for award claims.
I can also assure you that a good number of other radio amateurs active on LF
and interested are against what you are doing, but they do not wish to get
involved with the politics of LF.
It is great to live north of Watford where we have freedom of speech and
expression and plenty of real estate for real LF antenna experimentation and an
abundance of MERCEDES BENZ to drive on roads still uncongested.
G3KEV


> have expressed objection to the basic
> idea of the LF relay. The derogatory response from G3KEV was predictable and
> about par for the course and is just one more in a long line of similar
> outbursts. I was however more sorry to read the views expressed by Steve
> GW4ALG and Dave G3YMC with whom I have had many a enjoyable QSO. I hope
> perhaps Steve you will on reflection not say farewell yet to the LF bands -
> that would be such a pity. The 136kHz band can ill aford to lose such an
> active operator and experimenter. To clarify things would like to emphasise
> the following points :
>
> (1) The system should not be regarded in the same light as a 2m FM repeater.
> It is an experiment to provide a remote receiver whose main function is to
> overcome the problems of local noise and not to act as an intermediate
> repeater intended to extend the range coverage. A second objective is to
> encourage more interest in LF activity locally and there are already signs
> that members of other clubs have started monitoring activity on 136kHz via
> the relay receiver. The fear that somehow this will encourage more "black
> box" operation seems to me to be irrelevant since most of us use commercial
> receivers already and a 136kHz transmitter and antenna system is still
> needed to make a QSO.  We did not have in mind its use in achieving awards
> or records when establishing the remote receiver but to avoid any confusion
> as to the signal path, we will be encouraging the practice of adding "RX via
> MB7LF" to outgoing signal reports on 136kHz.
>
> (2) The licence is held by the RSGB and delegated by them to the relay
> keeper. At the end of the first  year of operation we will review it and if
> the general consensus of LF operators (perhaps after discussion at the next
> HF Convention) is that it is not a good thing, then we will shut it down.
>
> (3) The system is not yet optimised since it was put together in a very
> short time in order to support the LF special event station MB2HFC at the HF
> Convention at Windsor. As has been said elsewhere on the reflector, without
> its use it would not have been possible to operate a viable demonstration
> station as was found last year due to the local noise level. Or should we
> have just sat on our hands and missed the opportunity to encourage more LF
> interest among a wider audience?  We opted to use initially an active
> antenna with only a 1.2m whip only 30ft AGL operating in conjunction a fixed
> loop to null out Loran to demonstrate the potential of active receiving
> antennas in support of the talk by Andre' N1ICK on the AMRAD antenna.
> Although the antenna system maybe not yet be optimised, it was clearly
> working reasonably well since we managed to work as far as Finbar EI0CF at
> Malin Head at the northern tip of Eire and down to F6BWO in the opposite
> direction in Chaumont, SE of Paris, both being in the region of  600km
> distance. As part of the experiment it is planned in future as an
> alternative to the active antenna, to patch in to the Crawley Club  360ft
> inverted "L"  antenna which is up at around 60ft AGL. We also plan to
> experiment with a very long terminated half-loop antenna similar to that
> being currently being used so successfully by Laurie G3AQC  pointed at
> Lessay to null out Loran.
>
> Finally, it's early days yet. We believe that the project is in the amateur
> tradition of experiment as several of the mesages posted on the reflector
> have already said. We would also like to pay tribute to the UK Radio
> Licensing Authority and the RSGB for the speed with which they  processed
> the licence application and their helpful comments on the way
>
>                     Vy 73, de  Derek Atter G3GRO