Message-ID: <4E9DE5CF.8040409@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:47:11 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4E99EA7C.5080200@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <CAO19VgMEjRxDTsuSveG_6nmD2gcMnfYGzGvWULD4RE=U9eDtkA@mail.gmail.com> <4E9C2CB9.3040303@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4E9C71B1.9010306@legal-medicine.de> <4E9C74DE.5090407@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <00fc01cc8d21$dc5fba00$4001a8c0@lark> <4E9D9CA9.5050604@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <003b01cc8dd5$99073a80$4001a8c0@lark>
In-Reply-To: <003b01cc8dd5$99073a80$4001a8c0@lark>
Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since? 73k ??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60cc4e9de63828df
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Alan,

Am 18.10.2011 22:36, schrieb Alan Melia:
> Sadly 136 was decimated when 500k opened up and possibly because 500k was
> easier (10 times easier) .......73kHz  is 4 times harder than 136k.
Ah, so 9 kHz is 230 times harder than 136k? What a hard live i have ;-)
>   So it
> wont increase activity but it would be somewhere different to play for those
> who like a challenge....as LFer always have.
Totally agreed.
>   "Everybody" moved to 136 when
> it opened not only because it was easier it was also a band available in
> other countries. We actually had to organise activity nights to get sigs on
> 73k.  Getting 73k was a UK "stop-gap" or "foot in the door" from a helpfull
> regulatory authority and a forward thinking Society.
>    
And now the times of a foward thinking society is over?
> The RTTY station from Rugby in the middle of the band (73.6??)could probably
> have been switched off if we had had the right contacts !! But we didnt
> learn that until too late. That frequency was allocated to BT and I believe,
> though I have no proof, that VT Comms probably made it (closure of NoVs) a
> condition of them taking over the Naval contract from BT because the dating
> is synchronous. I suspect that frequency was transfered to them. VTC have to
> run efficiently and they wont fire up a 50kW 73.6kHz transmitter unless it
> is really needed. There was no need for a "hot standby" at Rugby but it gave
> the engineers something to play with....it must have been a bit boring
> seeing 75 years of history slipping away beneath your fingers, as the
> stations closed down.
> (I dont think its VT Comms now they may have been merged since then)
>    
So, hard times for them too. Makes us sad and/or optimistic to get new 
super-low bands, maybe.


73, Stefan/DK7FC