Hi Alan,
I have contemplated getting a US experimental license for 73kHz
but have decided (for the moment at least) against it.
I believe that I could get a license, in fact I think I could get one
license that covers 70-190kHz now that Loran is gone.
The problem as you have stated it wouldn't bring any new people into
the LF hobby, I imagine that a few of the usual suspects on this side
of the pond would give it a whirl, but at the expense of the already
minimal 137kHz activity. Also I find 137 challenging enough!
--
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ
WD2XSH/23
WE2XEB/2
WE2XGR/1
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Alan Melia <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stefan, despite Roger's plea it is a known fact that there are a limited
> number of people interested in "doing it the hard way"....its a bit like
> QRP...... I think allocation is more political now that that frequency range
> is in the hands of a private company.
>
> Sadly 136 was decimated when 500k opened up and possibly because 500k was
> easier (10 times easier) .......73kHz is 4 times harder than 136k. So it
> wont increase activity but it would be somewhere different to play for those
> who like a challenge....as LFer always have. "Everybody" moved to 136 when
> it opened not only because it was easier it was also a band available in
> other countries. We actually had to organise activity nights to get sigs on
> 73k. Getting 73k was a UK "stop-gap" or "foot in the door" from a helpfull
> regulatory authority and a forward thinking Society.
>
> The RTTY station from Rugby in the middle of the band (73.6??)could probably
> have been switched off if we had had the right contacts !! But we didnt
> learn that until too late. That frequency was allocated to BT and I believe,
> though I have no proof, that VT Comms probably made it (closure of NoVs) a
> condition of them taking over the Naval contract from BT because the dating
> is synchronous. I suspect that frequency was transfered to them. VTC have to
> run efficiently and they wont fire up a 50kW 73.6kHz transmitter unless it
> is really needed. There was no need for a "hot standby" at Rugby but it gave
> the engineers something to play with....it must have been a bit boring
> seeing 75 years of history slipping away beneath your fingers, as the
> stations closed down.
> (I dont think its VT Comms now they may have been merged since then)
>
> It would be interesting to have an allocation again but dont hold your
> breathe and remember the interferenc is even worse than 136.....a lot of TV
> PSUs used to run at about 36kHz!! It you neighbour was out of the band on
> 136 he was probably all over 73 :-((
>
> Alan G3NYK
> Remember LF whatever the frequency stands for L(otsa) F(un)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Schäfer" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since?
>
>
>> Hi Alan :-)
>>
>> Am 18.10.2011 00:16, schrieb Alan Melia:
>> > Hi Stefan what was even "cooler" is that we were told quite firmly by
> the
>> > "know it alls" that we would not get a signal out of our back gardens
> with 1
>> > watt!!
>> Hehe i know ;-) Some reported to me from the early days, like DF8ZR,
>> that this was the opinion of some in the beginning...
>> > Does that sound familiar??
>> Hmmmm, maybe it was in February 2010? ;-)
>> Then it was 857 km with 1.8 mW ;-)
>> > I was a "Johney come lately" I only joined
>> > in the reflector in 2000 though I did experiment on 73kHz earlier,
> though I
>> > could never hear anything there for the local noise.
>> Oh, a pity. I would like to try on 73 kHz with the 300m vertical and
>> 500W in CW :-)
>> > My special permission
>> > (NoV) has gone into my "museum" :-))
>> >
>> If 73 kHz would be allocated to you still, what do you expect about the
>> activity there, now?
>>
>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
