Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 616DB38000087; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RLjgc-00074X-DZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:53:34 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RLjgb-00074O-Pc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:53:33 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RLjga-0004b2-LW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:53:33 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pA2MrVPZ006612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:53:32 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id pA2MrVhB009966 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4EB1C9A9.6050502@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:52:25 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= 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: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: 5 Whats? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040009020609090707040207" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE, 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: 0:2:458713088:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41164eb1ca256d94 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040009020609090707040207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I fully agree, Dimitris. 2.1 kHz is totally enough on 137 kHz so why do i need 8 kHz BW? And why should i loose interest just because others have 27 kHz??? Is there a logic behind that? Also, as we can read, some are to lazy to resonate on another frequency. What a terrible high effort! So why do we need 10s of kHz if not even willing to resonate to the other end of the band? BTW about the 5W. We all know that any serious contest station on HF does not really care about a power limit. The same on EME on VHF/UHF. We all know it and it seems to be accepted. Otherwise most contest HQ stations must have been disqualified in the past, but they weren't. Thinking psoitive is the right way. 5 W EIRP is more than many will ever radiate so who cares? Not everyone is interested in DX. I also prefer some nice local contacts to a loong DX that takes not even a minute, if at all. Dimitris, what about your recent VLF experiments? Any progress? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 02.11.2011 23:16, schrieb Dimitrios Tsifakis: > I can certainly live with that. Fingers crossed now for WRC-12. And a > well done to those that achieved this outcome. I hear that it hasn't > been an easy task. > > There is still plenty of things to do with 5 W radiated. Isn't this > radio hobby of ours all about the challenge anyway? Smaller rigs, less > global warming :-) Also, bigger wavelength, isn't that better? :-) > > Seriously, better this than nothing. New crystals can be cut, and the > antennas can be tuned. 8 kHz is plenty too. Sometimes, at least in > this part of the world, I even think that 2.1 kHz is an unimaginably > huge bandwidth for the modes that are the most popular (QRSS and friends). > > Just my humble opinion anyway. > > 73, Dimitris VK1SV > > > 2011/11/3 Laurence KL7UK > > > During the meeting of the CEPT WRC-12 Conference Preparatory Group > held in Bucharest between November 1st-4th 2011 an European Common > Proposal was agreed. This ECP represents the block vote of 48 > administrations and was passed without dissent. It proposes an > allocation to the amateur service between 472-480 kHz on a > secondary basis with a maximum power limit of 5W eirp. > This ECP will now be forwarded to the ITU as a contribution from CEPT. > I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who > participated in the work of the working group that led to the > adoption of this proposal. Also thanks are due to those European > Member Societies who helped to influence their national > administrations in this matter. > Now for WRC-12. > Colin, G3PSM > CEPT Co-ordinator for Agenda Item 1.23 > > > Laurence KL7UK > > --------------040009020609090707040207 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I fully agree, Dimitris.

2.1 kHz is totally enough on 137 kHz so why do i need 8 kHz BW? And why should i loose interest just because others have 27 kHz??? Is there a logic behind that? Also, as we can read, some are to lazy to resonate on another frequency. What a terrible high effort! So why do we need 10s of kHz if not even willing to resonate to the other end of the band?

BTW about the 5W. We all know that any serious contest station on HF does not really care about a power limit. The same on EME on VHF/UHF. We all know it and it seems to be accepted. Otherwise most contest HQ stations must have been disqualified in the past, but they weren't.

Thinking psoitive is the right way. 5 W EIRP is more than many will ever radiate so who cares? Not everyone is interested in DX. I also prefer some nice local contacts to a loong DX that takes not even a minute, if at all.

Dimitris, what about your recent VLF experiments? Any progress?

73, Stefan/DK7FC



Am 02.11.2011 23:16, schrieb Dimitrios Tsifakis:
I can certainly live with that. Fingers crossed now for WRC-12. And a well done to those that achieved this outcome. I hear that it hasn't been an easy task.

There is still plenty of things to do with 5 W radiated. Isn't this radio hobby of ours all about the challenge anyway? Smaller rigs, less global warming :-) Also, bigger wavelength, isn't that better? :-)

Seriously, better this than nothing. New crystals can be cut, and the antennas can be tuned. 8 kHz is plenty too. Sometimes, at least in this part of the world, I even think that 2.1 kHz is an unimaginably huge bandwidth for the modes that are the most popular (QRSS and friends).

Just my humble opinion anyway.

73, Dimitris VK1SV


2011/11/3 Laurence KL7UK <hellozerohellozero@hotmail.com>
During the meeting of the CEPT WRC-12 Conference Preparatory Group held in Bucharest between November 1st-4th 2011 an European Common Proposal was agreed.   This ECP represents the block vote of 48 administrations and was passed without dissent.   It proposes an allocation to the amateur service between 472-480 kHz on a secondary basis with a maximum power limit of 5W eirp.
This ECP will now be forwarded to the ITU as a contribution from CEPT.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who participated in the work of the working group that led to the adoption of this proposal.   Also thanks are due to those European Member Societies who helped to influence their national administrations in this matter.
Now for WRC-12.
Colin, G3PSM
CEPT Co-ordinator for Agenda Item 1.23
 
 
Laurence KL7UK


--------------040009020609090707040207--