Return-Path: Received: from mtain-de03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-de03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.203]) by air-di04.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINDI044-eac54b880bdf3e5; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:58:55 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-de03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D369C380000A2; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Nl4Re-0007YZ-Ti for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:57:46 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Nl4Re-0007YQ-AQ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:57:46 +0000 Received: from smtp6.freeserve.com ([193.252.22.190]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Nl4Ra-0007g5-Vq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:57:46 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3602.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8BEEB7000091 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:57:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3602.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7F3197000092 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:57:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from AGB (unknown [91.109.57.19]) by mwinf3602.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id BA9827000091 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:57:31 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20100226175731764.BA9827000091@mwinf3602.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <536EE8EDA26C4F968F81782282AFB191@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <9afca2641002221442s72f18373t26847ca0487ac2b1@mail.gmail.com> <9afca2641002230232k3af949e6kcd2fe2a53b11d822@mail.gmail.com> <9afca2641002250919y7bdb25ebq8b913bb7d210e488@mail.gmail.com> <57a24ca71002251331m10d45acfo2284f6cfe89f5607@mail.gmail.com> <61C255CA083040EDA5A011C0B0572524@AGB>, In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:57:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100226-0, 26/02/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation below 9kHz? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01CAB70D.2A8B4AB0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40cb4b880bd63744 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CAB70D.2A8B4AB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rik ..=20 It may seem odd that 9 Khz causes concern but I think there was= some concern at tx causing problems with a lightning detection sys= tem working round 10 khz ..... substitute 'very bright flash' fo= r 'lightning' and it makes more sense .. but as that's not so high = on the menu these days .. they just use it to check your insura= nce claims for static damage against recorded 'events' close to you= .....=20 G ..=20 From: Rik Strobbe=20 Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:32 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: RE: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation belo= w 9kHz? If Ofcom wants to (or must) regulate "transmissions" below 9kHz they= must have a lower limit of whant they consider radiation. Otherwise= one wouild need a NoV to connect an audio amplifier to a loudspeaker= via a cable. Unless the the matching is perfect the cable will radiat= e some nannowatts or picowatts. With amateur means (antenna's , power) we won't radiate much more than= a few milliwatts. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blackshee= p.org] namens Andy Talbot [andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 15:59 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: Re: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation be= low 9kHz? Yes, unbelievable isn't it! Been going gon for abt 4 weeks now. Andy www.g4jnt.com On 26 February 2010 13:46, Graham wrote: Warren , If you think this is bad, you should take a look at the 'ROS' di= scussion's in the yahoo digital data group .. SS paranoia has take= n hold ! G .. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Warren Ziegler" Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:31 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation be= low 9kHz? Asking Ofcom for a license or Nov to generate a signal that will= not extend past your own garden seems like a lot of trouble for nothing.... --=20 73 Warren K2ORS WD2XGJ WD2XSH/23 WE2XEB/2 WE2XGR/1 On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Jacek Lipkowski wrote: On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Roger Lapthorn wrote: People may be interested in the reply from Rod Wilkinson at OF= COM received today. I asked him what OFCOM's view would be. [...] They state that ITU Radio Regs indicate that there is no alloc= ation for frequencies below 9 kHz. However in the UK, a licence would be= required as there is no lower frequency limit for wireless telegraphy unde= r the WT Act 2006. [...] there is already a very big commercial user of the elf and vlf= spectrum, they inject very big power into ground dipoles. emissions from= one continent can be heard on another. and they do this without any license fr= om the radio authorities. the only regulation they need regards maximum field= strengths (and this is usually the realm of some environmental protection= authority and not the radio authority). the operating frequency varies, bu= t is usually 50Hz, 60Hz, 16.6Hz etc :) sometimes when dealing with the goverment, the best practice is= not to ask at all :) even if they agree with you there will always be a "bu= t you will need a license for that" clause. if you have to ask, ask them if it is their duty to regulate pot= ential electromagnetic wave transmission from instalations operating on= 50Hz (or any other frequency in the 0-9kHz region, that is not ITU regula= ted). you would probably get an entirely different answer :) VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF ps. the answer that you got from OFCOM is actually very nice ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CAB70D.2A8B4AB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rik ..
 
It may seem  odd  that = ; 9 Khz =20 causes concern  but I think there  was some  concern at= tx=20 causing  problems with a  lightning detection system = =20 working  round 10 khz ..... substitute  'very  bright= =20  flash'  for 'lightning' and it makes more sense .. but= as=20 that's  not so high  on the menu these  days  ..= they =20 just use it to  check  your  insurance claims  for= static=20 damage against recorded 'events' close to  you ..... 
 
G ..

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Op= eration=20 below 9kHz?

If Ofcom= wants to (or=20 must) regulate "transmissions" below 9kHz they must have a lower limit= of whant=20 they consider radiation. Otherwise one wouild need a NoV to connect an= audio=20 amplifier to a loudspeaker via a cable. Unless the the matching is per= fect the=20 cable will radiate some nannowatts or picowatts.
With amateur means (antenn= a's , power) we=20 won't radiate much more than a few milliwatts.
 
73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T=
 
Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blackshee= p.org=20 [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Andy Talbot=20 [andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari= 2010=20 15:59
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp:= Re: LF:=20 Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation below=20 9kHz?

Yes, unbelievable isn't it!
Been going gon for abt 4 weeks now.
On 26 February 2010 13:46, Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fs= net.co.uk>=20 wrote:
Warren ,

If= you  think this is bad, you=20  should take a  look at the  'ROS' discussion's in th= e yahoo=20   digital data group ..  SS  paranoia has taken hold= !

G=20 ..

--------------------------------------------------
From= : "Warren=20 Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.co= m>
Sent: Thursday,=20 February 25, 2010 9:31 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject:= =20 Re: LF: Fwd: Special Permits for Amateur Radio Operation below 9kHz?=


Asking Ofc= om for a license or Nov to generate a signal=20 that will not
extend past your own garden seems like a lot of= trouble=20 for
nothing....

--
73 Warren K2ORS
   =  =20         WD2XGJ
       =  =20     WD2XSH/23
          &nbs= p;  =20 WE2XEB/2
             =20 WE2XGR/1


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Jacek Lipkows= ki <sq5bpf@lipkowski.= org> wrote:
On Thu,= 25 Feb 2010, Roger Lapthorn wrote:

Pe= ople may be interested in the reply from Rod=20 Wilkinson at OFCOM received
today. I asked him what OFCOM's= view=20 would be.

[...]
They state that ITU Radio Regs indicate that there=20 is no allocation for
frequencies below 9 kHz. However in th= e UK, a=20 licence would be required as
there is no lower frequency li= mit for=20 wireless telegraphy under the WT Act
2006.=20 [...]

there is already a very big commercial= user of=20 the elf and vlf spectrum,
they inject very big power into gro= und=20 dipoles. emissions from one continent
can be heard on another= . and they=20 do this without any license from the radio
authorities. the= only=20 regulation they need regards maximum field strengths
(and thi= s is=20 usually the realm of some environmental protection authority
= and not=20 the radio authority). the operating frequency varies, but is=20 usually
50Hz, 60Hz, 16.6Hz etc :)

sometimes when deali= ng with=20 the goverment, the best practice is not to ask
at all :) even= if they=20 agree with you there will always be a "but you will
need a li= cense for=20 that" clause.

if you have to ask, ask them if it is their= duty to=20 regulate potential
electromagnetic wave transmission from ins= talations=20 operating on 50Hz (or
any other frequency in the 0-9kHz regio= n, that is=20 not ITU regulated). you
would probably get an entirely differ= ent answer=20 :)

VY 73

Jacek / SQ5BPF

ps. the answer that= you got=20 from OFCOM is actually very=20 nice





<= /DIV>


------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CAB70D.2A8B4AB0--