Message-ID: <00cb01c96ea2$53bdba30$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <900266.70866.qm@web28104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <8B40C93B6D744638868D0A5591138990@JimPC>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:26:22 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Silent majority
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


But Jim it is hardly rocket science contacting someone not far away using a 
system that takes up 1 khz of bandwidth in a 3 khz slot.
The modes used are only variants of those that have gone before.
There is virtually nothing new to discover or invent that has not already 
taken place on MF. The area of adventure is the microwave spectrum where the 
sky and bandwidth are unlimited.
The original proposal and concept for 500 khz was to use telegraphy as 
defined in CAP and Marine publications and now issued by  OFCOM on behalf of 
H M Government.
Flexibility has been permitted in the use of data modes but not to the 
detriment of other users. Why not use these modes on 160 metres where there 
is more bandwidth available and less likelyhood of annoying other users on 
the band.
160m and 600m have similar propagation characteristics, plus the fact 
permitted power is higher, 400 watts in on segment of the band.
de G3KEV

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 6:57 PM
Subject: LF: Re: Silent majority


> Dear Pete, LF Group,
>
> M0FMT wrote:
>>Mal you've got my vote and probably the Vote of the silent majority on the
>>Band....
>
> This is presumably the same silent majority that complain about lack of
> activity. It would be nice if the majority was a little less silent, at
> least in the RF sense.
>
> Ofcom have granted the 500kHz NoVs for research purposes. We each had to
> make an application based on what sort of research we intended to do. In
> mine, among other things, I proposed to investigate the effectiveness of
> various different modes at MF, and the application was granted on this
> basis. I hope to get some results, either positive or negative, that will
> shed some light on this subject.
>
> In the meantime, arguments rage on, mostly people telling anyone who is
> doing anything on 500kHz that they shouldn't be doing it. This is not very
> constructive; if we expect Ofcom to extend the 500kHz deadline, and to
> entertain future requests for bandwidth, we collectively need to show that
> interesting things can be done with this type of allocation by amateurs.
> Most of the band is empty most of the time, so there is plenty of space 
> for
> more different kinds of activity according to different tastes and
> interests - there is no requirement to reach a universal consensus first.
>
> So if you are part of this Silent Majority who don't like the existing
> activity on 500k, get busy doing the things that you do like - and 
> persuade
> like-minded people to join in. It has to be better than ranting!
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1873 - Release Date: 1/3/2009 
2:14 PM