Don't do that Alan. Myself and many others who are just getting active on
the band would, I am sure, be pleased to work you!
73
Tom G3OLB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Ibbetson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 500 Permit Allocation conditions
In message <006b01c7d3ba$78370d00$0300a8c0@lark>, Alan Melia
<[email protected]> writes
You could be sinking
a awfull lot of work by several people to get this allocation at
all.....dont mess it up !
and In message <004301c7d3c7$5515e780$fd1a7ad5@w4o8m9>, James Moritz
<[email protected]> writes
any QSOs resulting should probably be considered a spin-off of the
experimental activity.
My NoV application specifically mentioned "assessing the communications
effectiveness of electrically small aerials in a domestic garden". I
expected to engage in two way QSOs with a significant number of stations
"to compliment the work I am already undertaking in the field of HF low
power communication".
I've got as far as I feel able, within the constraints of low QSO
activity, so I am leaving the band free for those more worthy than I. I've
put my 500K transmitter on the shelf and will reconfigure my inverted-L
for top band when I next crank the tower down. I'll unsubscribe from this
list now, to save bandwidth on blacksheep.org.
Back to building my 30 watt homebrew 80M superhet CW transceiver in a
2x4x4 inch box...
--
Cheers,
Alan G3XAQ
[email protected]
|
