Return-Path: Received: from mtain-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.10]) by air-db09.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDB094-869d4c0760b5278; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:58:45 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DFBBB380000BA; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 03:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1OK5HF-0001Pc-7A for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:55:45 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1OK5HE-0001PT-MV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:55:44 +0100 Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OK5HB-0000OV-PY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:55:44 +0100 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so98835bwz.16 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:55:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XTRb7VEKSIEdVQa910gMmZkPcj7QOkJGcmrfQ16/gpc=; b=VQaDijCnCvSmvk5H8qvinqBSn5wtjQo+aQeqrodQtYm56OX5oi+OBMOgroQfpIhSAI 2blqN8nBTHiVOVh8qdf+6iegSpp2gztmNeE+MJkPjecnJUnqVkEDeGXljaxGYtS7fLd3 L2c2TOaGcssaZXOXC5hBsQcYOrjfYmC+iX9Qg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=TsSUdBE9Rh0Zi8MdMwHfMhm6dAOuTVMn1j5aweVQZQb4wqVdECjj1OHFit7O58nyen xLMN94D/Y5+UiElwWQVWeN/sqWsBClqVKcepq4X0SEHmHEKCjYaQGbtDljcRMWnVD0bN 39DzoTj2ObZizJ/Uyj4NusLgL0XGiCeyWtFGM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.160.70 with SMTP id m6mr2587279bkx.59.1275551740176; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.58.204 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:55:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb02a1$77e99ca0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <185F9B80-72E9-4330-B1C3-FEFFADBC8C09@numeo.fr> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 08:55:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Sub-9kHz NoV progress Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cdb1a5daad004881b8875 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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: S X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m236.2 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d600a4c0760ae0375 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --0015175cdb1a5daad004881b8875 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It does not surprise me that the OFCOM and the Met Office have taken almost 3 months to make no decision yet on NoVs for sub-kHz, but I was doing "the right thing" by applying for one. A reasonable response would have been to give permission to go-ahead on a "non-interference to other users" basis for a fixed period and possibly with a limit on power to the "antenna". In the absence of hearing *any* news I've gone ahead with occasional earth-mode transmissions at 1, 5 and 8.97kHz using just 4W on the reasonable assumption that radiated power is likely to be in the pW region and the risks to other users almost non-existant. Were I to run hundreds of watts to a larger antenna structure then it seems reasonable to wait for the NoV. Even then, as Stefan has shown, it requires a LOT of effort to get even a couple of mW of radiated power and the true risk of interference to other users must still be tiny. 73s Roger G3XBM On 3 June 2010 08:11, Rik Strobbe wrote: > John, > > I guess this applies only for signals above a certain level, probably the > same as for unwanted radiation (harmonics, spurs) of "legal" transmissions. > In Belgium it is 0dBm below 30MHz and -26dBm above (not stated wether this > is TX output power or ERP). > At VLF only ERP makes common sense (otherwise any audio amp would be > illegal). > Taking into account what efforts Stefan had to do to get 1mW ERP any "back > yard" experiment running reasonable power will far below this level. > > 73, Rik ON7YD > > BTW: below 9kHz is not regulated in Belgium, so UK dreamers band fans can > consider a holiday in Belgium ;-) > > ------------------------------ > *Van:* owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [ > owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens John Rabson [ > john.rabson@numeo.fr] > *Verzonden:* donderdag 3 juni 2010 8:42 > *Aan:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Onderwerp:* Re: LF: Re: Sub-9kHz NoV progress > > On 3 Jun 2010, at 00:18CEST, mal hamilton wrote: > > Roger > > Some say a NOV is not necessary on this QRG. > > > It depends on the country. The last time I asked, the Crown monopoly on > UK radiocommunications (which is modified by granting licences) did apply to > this part of the spectrum. Other adminstrations may have different laws. > > John F5VLF > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 --0015175cdb1a5daad004881b8875 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It does not surprise me that the OFCOM an= d the Met Office have taken almost 3 months to make no decision yet on NoV= s for sub-kHz, but I was doing "the right thing" by applying for= one.

A reasonable response would have been to give permission to go-ahead= on a "non-interference to other users" basis for a fixed period= and possibly with a limit on power to the "antenna". In the abs= ence of hearing any news I've gone ahead with occasional earth-= mode transmissions at 1, 5 and 8.97kHz using just 4W on the reasonable ass= umption that radiated power is likely to be in the pW region and the risks= to other users almost non-existant.

Were I to run hundreds of watts to a larger antenna structure then it= seems reasonable to wait for the NoV. Even then, as Stefan has shown, it= requires a LOT of effort to get even a couple of mW of radiated power and= the true risk of interference to other users must still be tiny.

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 3 Ju= ne 2010 08:11, Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:
John,
=A0
I guess this applies only for signal= s above a certain level, probably the same as=A0for unwanted radiation (ha= rmonics, spurs) of "legal" transmissions.
In Belgium it is 0dBm=A0below 30MHz= and -26dBm above (not stated wether this is TX output power or ERP).
At VLF only ERP makes common sense= (otherwise any audio amp would be illegal).
Taking into account what efforts Ste= fan had to do to get 1mW ERP any "back yard" experiment running= reasonable power will=A0far below this level.
=A0
73, Rik=A0 ON7YD
=A0
BTW: below 9kHz is not regulated in= Belgium, so UK=A0dreamers band fans can consider a holiday in Belgium ;-)=
=A0
Van: owner-rsgb_lf= _group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Jo= hn Rabson [john.= rabson@numeo.fr]
Verzonden: donderdag 3 juni 2010 8:42
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: Re: LF: Re: Sub-9kHz NoV progress

On 3 Jun 2010, at 00:18CEST, mal hamilton wrote:

Roger

Some say a NOV is not necessary on th= is QRG.

It depends on the country. =A0The last time I asked, the Crown monopoly on= UK radiocommunications (which is modified by granting licences) did apply= to this part of the spectrum. =A0Other adminstrations may have different= laws.

John F5VLF=A0



--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
G3XBM =A0 =A0GQRP 1678 =A0 =A0 =A0ISWL G11088
--0015175cdb1a5daad004881b8875--