Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id CDB45380001CA; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RGDxJ-0005XH-F9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:00:01 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RGDxI-0005X3-Mg for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:00:00 +0100 Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RGDxG-00066Z-39 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:00:00 +0100 Received: by wwg7 with SMTP id 7so1103779wwg.28 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=JW0unF+9U0UYZdHbXLxewwk4vTT1i2xG3ddEVZiI/5Q=; b=FRTAzYe0QtO6alSWznJiZbTK6hreIbVdAP2a+hbK0TMG93xdA95M4UJZri2BjD8sN7 nywxeuyZOzfo4T8WeDC4QI7VlkIcc5SZ35mwjKtMhNPsVL3Yg853u0jRIpFfiUUHbnWj VravDya41he7qJBxMX/FgN/5da02+A0Giq2tM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.143.209 with SMTP id w17mr1171040wbu.52.1318960791231; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.81.170 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46DFDA4628A84E3DA2E5C4A96AD081AB@JimPC> References: <4E99EA7C.5080200@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <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> <46DFDA4628A84E3DA2E5C4A96AD081AB@JimPC> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:59:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: 73kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65503ae6f1ccf04af967da8 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=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: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:447260000:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d005.2 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d408f4e9dbeda7198 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --0016e65503ae6f1ccf04af967da8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 At the risk of starting a backlash from people here saying, "don't spread the activity even more thinly", is it worth a serious push for 73kHz to be made available again in the UK by NoV? If the allocation is quiet then surely on a strictly limited access, low ERP, basis and for a limited time there might be some possibility? For 8.7-9.1kHz we managed to persuade OFCOM to talk with the Met Office, and several of us did so directly to argue our cases, and the outcome was positive and in not too many months. I know we have discussed this before. 73 (yes please!) Roger G3XBM On 18 October 2011 18:34, James Moritz wrote: > Dear Stefan, LF Group, > > 73kHz reception was a problem in the UK because of an FSK utility located > at Rugby in the middle of the band, which had strong noise sidebands that > created QRM across the whole band. It used to shut down for maintenance for > an hour or two each month - then there would be a rush of UK stations trying > to work each other in CW. It also lead to the funny situation that the > UK-only 73kHz signals could often be received better by stations in mainland > Europe, and there were quite a few cross-band 73k - 136k QSOs. Radiating a > signal on 73k had the same problems as 136k but more so, and corona, melted > insulators etc., tended to be rather common! But quite a few stations > managed to transmit reasonable signals. > > Once you managed to radiate a signal, it would go a long way, with extended > ground wave range compared to 136k, even with rather low ERP. Some QRSS > transatlantic signals were received. I think 73kHz was perhaps the first > place QRSS was used, with early experiments between G4JNT and G3PLX. I > recall the last 73kHz QSO was between G3XDV and G3LDO, these stations also > had the first 2-way QSO on the band. Perversely, the withdrawal of the 73k > band happened at about the same time the Rugby FSK utility was > decommissioned. Nowadays, this part of the spectrum is remarkably quiet... > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > 73 de M0BMU > > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ --0016e65503ae6f1ccf04af967da8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At the risk of starting a backlash from people here saying, "don't= spread the activity even more thinly", is it worth a serious push for= 73kHz to be made available again in the UK by NoV?=A0 If the allocation is= quiet then surely on a strictly limited access, low ERP, basis and for a l= imited time there might be some possibility?

For 8.7-9.1kHz we managed to persuade OFCOM to talk with the Met Office= , and several of us did so directly to argue our cases, and the outcome was= positive and in not too many months.

I know we have discussed this= before.

73 (yes please!)

Roger G3XBM

= On 18 October 2011 18:34, James Moritz <james.moritz@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Dear Stefan, LF Group,

73kHz reception was a problem in the UK because of an FSK utility located a= t Rugby in the middle of the band, which had strong noise sidebands that cr= eated QRM across the whole band. It used to shut down for maintenance for a= n hour or two each month - then there would be a rush of UK stations trying= to work each other in CW. It also lead to the funny situation that the UK-= only 73kHz signals could often be received better by stations in mainland E= urope, and there were quite a few cross-band 73k - 136k QSOs. Radiating a s= ignal on 73k had the same problems as 136k but more so, and corona, melted = insulators etc., tended to be rather common! But quite a few stations manag= ed to transmit reasonable signals.

Once you managed to radiate a signal, it would go a long way, with extended= ground wave range compared to 136k, even with rather low ERP. Some QRSS tr= ansatlantic signals were received. I think 73kHz was perhaps the first plac= e QRSS was used, with early experiments between G4JNT and G3PLX. =A0I recal= l the last 73kHz QSO was between G3XDV and G3LDO, these stations also had t= he first 2-way QSO on the band. Perversely, the withdrawal of the 73k band = happened at about the same time the Rugby FSK utility was decommissioned. N= owadays, this part of the spectrum is remarkably quiet...

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU




--
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/http://www.g3xbm.co.u= k
http://www.= youtube.com/user/g3xbm
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/

--0016e65503ae6f1ccf04af967da8--