Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+500\s+Permit\s+Allocation\s+conditions\s+\/\s+Beacon\s+reports\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+500\s+Permit\s+Allocation\s+conditions\s+\/\s+Beacon\s+reports\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: 500 Permit Allocation conditions / Beacon reports (score: 1): Author: John Pumford-Green <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:19:50 +0100; I'm drawn to the band from a sense of nostalgia for the way it was used in the past and would dearly love to be able to use this area of spectrum as a CW paradise, thereby keeping it free of commerci; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-08/msg00422.html (13,010 bytes)
2. LF: Re: 500 Permit Allocation conditions / Beacon reports (score: 1): Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:05:47 +0100; Dear LF Group, Thanks for the reports on the beacon signal. Graham - the CW identifier was "test de M0BMU IO91VR". I support wholeheartedly G3NYK's opinion re the 500kHz allocation - I have been beco; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-08/msg00423.html (10,970 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]