> LF techniques covering every aspect have been documented over the years
> and while some purport to be inventing new methods they are really
> copying what has gone before. The broadcast industry has covered it in
> great depth and the various Government Agencies have also perfected the
> two way communications aspect especially narrow band methods. It seems
> the majority interested in LF do not realise this and think they are a
In fact, various government agencies (European Broadcasting services, US
Navy, etc.) have indeed been involved in LF transmissions for many
years. We should keep in mind, however, that those entities are above
all interested in _reliable_ coverage and hence, tend to use as large a
hammer as they can possibly find to drive down that nail, i.e., Radio
Luxemburg and France Inter=2 megawatts, and see also our AMRAD website
(http://www.amrad.org/projects/lf) for details and photographs of the
now defunct NSS US Navy site at Annapolis,Maryland.
We, amateur radio operators, are not necessarily interested in 24
hours/day coverage, and a QSO from time to time can be very satisfying.
Hence, ground wave is not necessarily the only way to go, and once we
start using skywave and QRSS, I am fairly sure that the above mentioned
Government Agencies have little experience in those domains, mainly,
again, because of unreliability or low throughput.
But surely, that may be, for some of us, where the fun lies ?
Finally, the ARRL Handbook has been printing since the 1920's a
statement to the effect that "(The Radio) Amateur is Gentlemanly". I,
for one, would not like to see this LF Forum, populated by a bunch of
old friends, becoming a place where what sometimes sounds to me like
ex cathedra statements are made and barbs exchanged.