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 becoming increasingly baffled by the arguments about band plans, about
which mode not to use, and the supposed congestion on 500kHz. According to
G3XIZ's list, there are about 25 stations active on the band; with 3kHz
bandwidth, that gives us 120Hz each. It would be perfectly technically
feasible, without great expense or complexity,  for all these stations to
transmit CW signals simultaneously without excessive mutual interference -
using the narrower-band modes like QRSS would allow much greater numbers of
course.

Also remember 500kHz is not an amateur band as such - it is available only
to those with the appropriate "special research permit" NoV, which says that
the band is for the purpose of conducting "special research", as detailed in
the applications we made. The NoVs expire in March next year, and if 500kHz
is to have a future, this research must have produced at least some
preliminary results that are of interest to Ofcom by then. I don't suppose
Ofcom are expecting revolutions in radio communications, but CW
communications on 500kHz has been going on for many decades and can hardly
be considered an experiment in the overall field of radio, and I can't see
they will be that impressed by claiming 3 countries towards the 500kHz DXCC
either. The main objective of operating on 500kHz needs to be experimental -
any QSOs resulting should probably be considered a spin-off of the
experimental activity. I hope people will go ahead and create a bit more
bedlam on 500kHz, provided it is constructive bedlam...

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU