Alan, thanks for your comments appreciating the work that has gone on these
past years to get to this position. As I said in my reply to Laurence it's
very much a team effort as you appreciate, with thanks to Colin and also RSGB
HQ.
Noted your comments re power.
Your less of a novice that I as you are at least on the band!
73 John, G3WKL
Alan Ibbetson <[email protected]> wrote :
> John,
>
> I think your group has done a fantastic job getting UK amateurs the
> first general operating permits for 500K in Europe.
>
> I'm interested in aerial experiments but, to make this offer some
> returns on the effort, I would favour a power limit at the aerial input,
> as we have on the higher bands. That way I will be motivated to make my
> electrically small aerial as efficient as possible within its domestic
> setting.
>
> I don't really mind what that power limit is. Although 20W or more might
> be nice for DXing, it doesn't seem necessary for inter-UK contacts. I
> would be happy with 4 or 5W, which is what most people seem to be
> running. Once other countries gain access to the band I think there will
> be stronger case for higher power.
>
> I'm a newcomer to the band, so treat these comments as "from a novice".
>
> 73,
>
> Alan G3XAQ
>
> In message ,&lang=en">[email protected]>,
> John W Gould
> &lang=en">[email protected]>
> writes
> >Thought that I had better respond to Laurie's e-mail, now a few days ago.
> >
> >This is because the matter of the power level is to an extent under
> >review by Ofcom. If you recall we, RSGB, asked back in 2004 for a 1W
> >ERP limit as that was consistent with experience at 136kHz. A ERP
> >limit also gives Ofcom a real view as to what the likely coverage would
> >be at any particular bandwidth. That we were offered -10dBW ERP
> >reflects both a bold step by Ofcom and also some caution, given that
> >they have to an extent taken an interesting view of ITU Radio
> >Regulation 5.58 to our benefit. RR 5.58 defines 500kHz as an
> >international distress and calling frequency for Morse radiotelegraphy.
> >Ofcom may have taken the decision as they may expect to be withdrawn at
> >WRC07, and on knowledge that in this part of the world 500kHz is no
> >longer used as an international distress calling frequency. Other
> >authorities have not been so minded, as Dick, PA0SE, recently
> >discovered; they prefer to wait until such time as RR 5.58 has been
> deleted.
> >
> >Whilst we are currently limited to -10dBW RSGB/Ofcom are keeping the
> >matter under review and it may be timely, now that we have a good body
> >of experience to request that the limit be reconsidered. As far as I
> >am aware no interference complaints, or even local RFI problems have
> >been received, and our operating and conformance to licencing
> >conditions have been exemplary. From comments on this group it may be
> >better to request say a 10 or 20W power limit at the aerial feed-point,
> >for reasons mentioned by Laurie. Whatever change to the limit is
> >agreed, if indeed any in the near term, it will have to be a cautious
> >change until such time as the Radio Regulations are more helpful in
> >allowing administrations to consider proper secondary allocation to the
> >Amateur service. This may or may not happen for a while, as we are
> >only really working at present to get the matter firmly on the WRC2011
> >agenda, such is the speed of the ITU. There is good practical reason
> >for making a request of this nature as one of the reasons why the ITU
> >process seems so slow is that for normal protocol to be followed one
> >needs to have had technical studies completed that relate to the new
> >proposals for the part of the spectrum in question. Our activity
> >between 502 and 504kHz, along with that by the US, Germany and Sweden
> >may qualify as such a study, so continuing the experiments at a higher
> >power, with the added challenge of maximising ERP from a fixed
> >feed-point power limit would add some breadth to our work.
> >
> >Of course, the unexpected could always happen, and we get something
> >sooner in the margins of Agenda Item 1.14 at this year's WRC. However,
> >as Agenda Item 1.14 is to review the operational procedures and
> >requirements for GMDSS and other related provisions our chances are
> >slim, as the Maritime service is likely to want to reuse the frequency
> >around 500kHz. However, it is an agenda item concerning this part of
> >the spectrum so the possibility, however distant, must be there.
> >
> >I'd be interested in any further views to Laurie's proposal; I'am open
> >to suggestions as to the power level, but it will be important to hit a
> >target that is both challenging to the experimenter, helpful for
> >continued propagation research and also one that will not provide too
> >much risk for Ofcom in terms of coordination with the primary user service.
> >
> >73 John, G3WKL
> >RSGB HF Manager
> >IARU Region 1 LF Coordinator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan G3XAQ
> [email protected]
|
