Hi Alan,

    Well I will respond by making the following offer, I will help
anyone who is serious about getting on 73kHz either with the license
process or by loaning them transmitting equipment.

-- 
73 Warren K2ORS
                WD2XGJ
                WD2XSH/23
                WE2XEB/2
                WE2XGR/1



On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Alan Melia <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Warren, yes but its nice to see enthusiasm still on the LF bands even if
> ol'farts like me keep on squelching them with "been there done that" :-))
>
> Alan
> G3NYK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Warren Ziegler" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: LF reflector, since? 73k ??
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>