Message-ID: <A8746384DC93458EAD667E1DB8B49EE5@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
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>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:56:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since? 73k ??
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 3039ac1d608d4e9e127619be
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Well  did  'we'   ever improve  the   radiated  signal , or  did  the=20
'technologists'  simply  provide  the   ability  to  disperse the  fog of=
=20
noise?

As  Mal  often points out, and may be  he  has a  point , how many    liv=
e=20
long  range  'dx'   qso's  are  completed on the  lower  bands  , using  =
 a=20
pair  of  sg-browns  and  the    standard  MK1  lug-hole ..  similarly,=20
im sure  my  ST5  and  creed 75  would  also  struggle  to  print in simi=
lar=20
conditions ?

Of the  modern  concept of   QRP , this  seems  to  of  evolved into  a=20
automated  arena  where the  tag 'qrp'   is  added  to the  transmission=20
and    its left to the  receiving  station  to struggle  with the=20
resolution  and  noise  floor .. on hf its  always  notable  , how short =
the=20
qrp  qso  becomes  if  one  aligns ,  tx  power  with the calling  'qrp'=20
station , instantly  evoking ,   lost in the  noise, qsb, qrm , qrn , ..=20
quite ...

One  'qrp'  system has a  APC  automated power  control function,  that=20
endeavours  to  minimise the  power level in the link  , based on  the=20
previous  transmissions , a  noble  venture,  but  often could be  mistak=
en=20
for  Almost Perfect Copy  , as the  path  drops  below  the  digital  cli=
ff=20
..

May  be  on the lower  bands  , its actually  the  default  mode and  'we=
'=20
all   struggle with  tx  and  rx  ,  but  as  noted, with the  advancemen=
t=20
of  technology its possible  for  one  side or  both of the  link to  off=
er=20
a  helping hand , and  for  those  of use who  have  followed  a little=20
later , well , there  still  seems to  be  ample  scope  for  progress ?

G..







--------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:36 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since? 73k ??

>
> Hi Stefan, despite Roger's plea it is a known fact that there are a=20
> limited
> number of people interested in "doing it the hard way"....its a bit lik=
e
> QRP...... I think allocation is more political now that that frequency=20
> range
> is in the hands of a private company.
>
> Sadly 136 was decimated when 500k opened up and possibly because 500k w=
as
> easier (10 times easier) .......73kHz  is 4 times harder than 136k. So =
it
> wont increase activity but it would be somewhere different to play for=20
> those
> who like a challenge....as LFer always have. "Everybody" moved to 136 w=
hen
> it opened not only because it was easier it was also a band available i=
n
> other countries. We actually had to organise activity nights to get sig=
s=20
> on
> 73k.  Getting 73k was a UK "stop-gap" or "foot in the door" from a=20
> helpfull
> regulatory authority and a forward thinking Society.
>
> The RTTY station from Rugby in the middle of the band (73.6??)could=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> dating
> is synchronous. I suspect that frequency was transfered to them. VTC ha=
ve=20
> 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=
=20
> 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)
>
> It would be interesting to have an allocation again but dont hold your
> breathe and remember the interferenc is even worse than 136.....a lot o=
f=20
> TV
> PSUs used to run at about 36kHz!! It you neighbour was out of the band =
on
> 136 he was probably all over 73 :-((
>
> Alan G3NYK
> Remember LF whatever the frequency stands for L(otsa) F(un)
>
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" <Stefan.Schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since?
>
>
>> Hi Alan :-)
>>
>> Am 18.10.2011 00:16, schrieb Alan Melia:
>> > Hi Stefan what was even "cooler" is that we were told quite firmly b=
y
> the
>> > "know it alls" that we would not get a signal out of our back garden=
s
> with 1
>> > watt!!
>> Hehe i know ;-) Some reported to me from the early days, like DF8ZR,
>> that this was the opinion of some in the beginning...
>> >   Does that sound familiar??
>> Hmmmm, maybe it was in February 2010? ;-)
>> Then it was 857 km with 1.8 mW ;-)
>> >   I was a "Johney come lately" I only joined
>> > in the reflector in 2000 though I did experiment on 73kHz earlier,
> though I
>> > could never hear anything there for the local noise.
>> Oh, a pity. I would like to try on 73 kHz with the 300m vertical and
>> 500W in CW :-)
>> > My special permission
>> > (NoV) has gone into my "museum" :-))
>> >
>> If 73 kHz would be allocated to you still, what do you expect about th=
e
>> activity there, now?
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>
>>
>
>
>=20