Pete We all manage on 160 metres where the same criteria applies. You just need selectivity and expertise. Some operators get nervous when Watts are mentioned and prefer uWatts. You must be having a
Hi Mal its not the same. We are talking about a maximum of 3kcs separation but more likely to be only one to half a kcs. The IF selectivity can sort that OK but what it can't do is stop front end bei
Warren, all, 472-480kHz with 5W EIRP is the outcome of long and at moments very difficult negotiations. Indeed, my "wish list" would be 500-515kHz with 100W EIRP or so. But at the end I prefer to hav
Ill certainly take 5W versus none with a big smile on my face - I know how much work has gone into this so far with a number of people giving up considerable time and resources. Now as Rik says we/th
Hi to all LF, I must agree with Jim & Pete, it is a positive step even though the ERP may be less than our present NoV allocation. In considering the limits proposed we must realise that if accepted
To a REAL ham NOT a problem but an inconvience but most operators today on LF es MF are Appliance Operators so it is a big problem. g3kev Warren, all, 472-480kHz with 5W EIRP is the outcome of long a
Only about half as many Fs as Gs, and we got 137 later than others (like the extra 100 kHz on 40m). John On 2 Nov 2011, at 21:25CET, mal hamilton wrote: John How many? they do not seem too keen on 13
FYI the U.S. Experimental license WE2XGR covers 42kHz (460-480 and 493-515) with 1kW ERP and includes cw,ssb and all data modes. No interference problems to date. -- 73 Warren K2ORS W
Dear LF Group, Well, I think this is a positive development - the only minor disappointment is the reduction in maximum ERP to about 3W. As for the choice of frequency, the maritime people have a pla
