MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <003b01cc8dd5$99073a80$4001a8c0@lark>
References: <4E99EA7C.5080200@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
	<CAO19VgMEjRxDTsuSveG_6nmD2gcMnfYGzGvWULD4RE=U9eDtkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9C2CB9.3040303@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
	<4E9C71B1.9010306@legal-medicine.de>
	<4E9C74DE.5090407@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
	<00fc01cc8d21$dc5fba00$4001a8c0@lark>
	<4E9D9CA9.5050604@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
	<003b01cc8dd5$99073a80$4001a8c0@lark>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMFjj73LLJw-du0a9bbNvJGntOKwhy=NUgEG=_5wmOOkM-GL+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Ziegler <wd2xgj@gmail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since? 73k ??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m021.1 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d601a4e9eea8b5d21
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Alan,
    I have contemplated getting a US experimental license for 73kHz
but have decided (for the moment at least) against it.
I believe that I could get a license, in fact I think I could get one
license that covers 70-190kHz now that Loran is gone.
The problem as you have stated it wouldn't bring any new people into
the LF hobby, I imagine that a few of the usual suspects on this side
of the pond would give it a whirl, but at the expense of the already
minimal 137kHz activity. Also I find 137 challenging enough!


--=20
73 Warren K2ORS
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WD2XGJ
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WD2XSH/23
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WE2XEB/2
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WE2XGR/1


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Alan Melia <alan.melia@btinternet.com> wro=
te:
> Hi Stefan, despite Roger's plea it is a known fact that there are a limit=
ed
> number of people interested in "doing it the hard way"....its a bit like
> QRP...... I think allocation is more political now that that frequency ra=
nge
> is in the hands of a private company.
>
> Sadly 136 was decimated when 500k opened up and possibly because 500k was
> easier (10 times easier) .......73kHz =A0is 4 times harder than 136k. So =
it
> wont increase activity but it would be somewhere different to play for th=
ose
> who like a challenge....as LFer always have. "Everybody" moved to 136 whe=
n
> 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. =A0Getting 73k was a UK "stop-gap" or "foot in the door" from a help=
full
> regulatory authority and a forward thinking Society.
>
> The RTTY station from Rugby in the middle of the band (73.6??)could proba=
bly
> 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 belie=
ve,
> 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 dati=
ng
> 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 i=
t
> is really needed. There was no need for a "hot standby" at Rugby but it g=
ave
> 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 of =
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 -----
> 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 by
> the
>> > "know it alls" that we would not get a signal out of our back gardens
> 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...
>> > =A0 Does that sound familiar??
>> Hmmmm, maybe it was in February 2010? ;-)
>> Then it was 857 km with 1.8 mW ;-)
>> > =A0 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 the
>> activity there, now?
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>
>>
>
>
>