Return-Path: Received: from rly-df10.mx.aol.com (rly-df10.mail.aol.com [172.19.156.23]) by air-df02.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINDF023-57e49783e9291; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:38:50 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-df10.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDF101-57e49783e9291; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:38:36 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LPvvT-0007rx-KI for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:32:39 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LPvvS-0007ro-4M for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:32:38 +0000 Received: from smtp2b.orange.fr ([80.12.242.146]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LPvvO-0001x7-Qm for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:32:35 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2b21.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B00CF20007C8 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:32:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from JR (Mix-Nancy-110-2-11.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.248.195.11]) by mwinf2b21.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C519120007AC for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:32:24 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090122093224807.C519120007AC@mwinf2b21.orange.fr Message-ID: <200901221032120654.25A24C20@smtp.wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: References: <008c01c97bf2$2ec4eed0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> X-Mailer: Courier 3.50.00.09.1098 (http://www.rosecitysoftware.com) (P) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:32:12 +0100 From: "John RABSON" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.033 Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 If I recall correctly, in the early days of negotiation with the Radiocommun= ications Agency in the UK, it was originally suggested that the RSGB should=20= apply for an allocation round about 173 kHz with 5W ERP (to line up with the= ZL allocation?). Time went by and we were asked for our views on an alloca= tion around 88 kHz. That idea was then withdrawn as that frequency was alre= ady in use by another service (it was and still is used with induction syste= ms for cave communications on 87 kHz USB). =20 Eventually we got 73 kHz. Mal says "several khz up or down the band from 137 it is clear". Not here i= t isn't. And if he, in Yorkshire, is unaffected by Loran he is very lucky. John F5VLF JN17vg *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 21/01/2009 at 19:25 James Moritz wrote: >Dear Mal, LF Group, > >I don't know... but it was probably the same as the reason for which the=20 >73kHz band was withdrawn at about the same time that all the utilities >which=20 >had been operating inside or near that part of the spectrum were=20 >decomissioned ;-) > >Cheers, Jim Moritz >73 de M0BMU > >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: "mal hamilton" >To: "rsgb" >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:00 PM >Subject: LF: 137 > > >Does anyone know why 137 khz was chosen as an amateur allocation, in that=20 >freq area it is the most polluted part, clobbered at both ends by >commercial=20 >high power transmitters...