Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <BAY124-F38E16002149CFEFF8E4873CFFB0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <8bf118410707190350s1de8be0cod0b07c597cd8ec80@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Laurence KL1X" <hellozerohellozero@hotmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:51:57 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: RE: 500 v 136
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Im in perhaps a strange position as I would never hear or see any signals on 
the band if it wasnt for some form of technical assistance non ear based, so 
it has its place I believe as long as its tenable and as Dave YMC says 
doesnt drive people away  by causing unsolicited qrm. Im not sure why it 
should  - but there again I dont live in any location which can give me 
enough s/n to copy by ear, well at the moment any way. I strive for the same 
s/n improvements at the less than dB level, just some 30dB less than audible 
thats all.

Roll on perhaps a couple of years and Ill land in a location where Im 
allowed to actually put a signal out on 137 or 500KHz - oh bliss....

Vy 73 Laurence 9V1 LF aka GM4DMA


>From: "Dave Pick" <daveyxm@googlemail.com>
>Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>Subject: Re: LF: RE: 500 v 136
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:50:05 +0100
>
>Dave and all.
>
>I don't agree about beacons. They are extremely useful for checking
>receivers / aerials etc. and giving us an idea of how conditions vary 
>during
>the day over the paths we need to know about. Better a beacon on the band
>than nothing!
>I still can't copy you by ear Dave but it's getting better. More power 
>Igor!
>
>Dave 'YXM
>
>
>On 19/07/07, Dave Sergeant <dave@davesergeant.com> wrote:
>>
>>On 19 Jul 2007 at 9:56, John GM4SLV wrote:
>>
>> > Can anyone give me a clue as to how long OFCOM/RSGB take to process
>> > the SRP applications. I posted mine on Wed 4th July, so it's been 2
>> > weeks and counting.
>>
>>Mine came back within just a few days, but that was back in April.
>>
>>Most of you on here will by now know my opinion of QRSS and I do seem
>>to be in the minority. Down here in the south there is enough
>>activity at times but it does vary. After sorting out my antenna/tx
>>problems yesterday I promptly had no less than 3 QSOs so I was well
>>pleased. I can never see the point of beaconing in any mode 24/7 and
>>I am sure it puts some people off. Down here many signals are STRONG
>>and it takes up valuable bandwidth, meaning if there are more than
>>say a couple of people who want seperate CW QSOs there ain't much
>>space with 400Hz filters. Like Mal I also lost interest in 136 when
>>it went that way and tend to agree with him that 500k is going the
>>same way. Let us use it for real experimentation rather than one or
>>two people transmitting (probably nowhere near the shack) and the
>>rest just licenced listeners.
>>
>>73 Dave G3YMC
>>
>>http://www.davesergeant.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>G3YXM IO92BK Birmingham UK

_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com