Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: John Rabson <john.rabson07@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1394776315.62062.YahooMailNeo@web133002.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:02:51 +0100
Message-Id: <21E3989A-F7F0-4AE6-9DD3-0E18321725C7@gmail.com>
References: <532254CF.1090400@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <1394776315.62062.YahooMailNeo@web133002.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Subject: Re: LF: LF tonite
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Recently a new source of QRM has started here Still trying to find it. =
On Argo it appears as a comb of lines with 50/100Hz spacing. Not even =
Stefan is detectable..

John F5VLF

On 14 Mar 2014, at 06:51CET, Chris Osborn <g3xiz@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> LF,
>=20
> Yes, the LF band appears dead as far as real QSO's are concerned.
>=20
> Following Dave G3YXM's RadCom article on LF / MF I beaconed and called =
CQ on 137.7 kHz extensively for consecutive weekends.
> My signals are not huge but have a range of several hundred km judging =
from the various grabbers' displays.
> Apart from one CW QSO with Dave on 136.5 kHz I had no other report or =
reply!
>=20
> LF operators are spread far too thinly and unless one makes a sked or =
advertises well in advance then the chances of a QSO are very slim.
>=20
> In the good old days the time for calling / QSO's used to be 'on the =
hour'.
> It's now probably time to have specific  'day and hour' periods each =
month for LF activity.
> If we knew that say the second Sunday in each month at 10.00Z would be =
activity time then maybe a few more ops would dust the cobwebs from =
their rusty LF rigs.
>=20
> 73
> Chris G3XIZ
>=20
>=20
> On Friday, 14 March 2014, 1:03, Stefan Sch=E4fer =
<schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> LF!
>=20
> There's not much activity these days on 137 kHz. I thought i spend the=20=

> night in good old QRSS-60 on 136.172 kHz.
>=20
> Reports welcome :-)
>=20
> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>=20
>=20
>=20