Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations

To:	<[email protected]>
Subject:	Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations
From:	"Markus Vester" <[email protected]>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:43:40 +0100
Authentication-results:	mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected]
Delivered-to:	[email protected]
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1390945423; bh=2bD+qSogsOFFwKXXR2OZb+zxy/3q+Ep87f0ghh0wZMs=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Te0zRlDzoGSVOhX1PUXFuy9h8gbaJcfLG6yrGWukotX1vWeb2aahG4JbzYb0u7mPl BF9+4nopYUmuE3XS7Lb0eI0B71Bn8AwrufxiZti28cyCw+w2nCPGPAAygxJmUAxRv5 e0qGDCNqc/VMWWbiz6m87+Fb2SFYBxVgU9z1CUjU=
In-reply-to:	<CAHAQVWN6uFPnWrJOsWH+Hz=WtE8e4Udqj+OWr522TykCTDzgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAHAQVWNBD=VQ5DiaC1Ac8yn1k+11f+ugzMcoOtp82dZ1iaW8gA@mail.gmail.com><[email protected]><[email protected]><trinity-40b68802-01c0-4f4b-9dfb-3e4e2f388e7e-1390943886815@3capp-gmx-bs07> <CAHAQVWN6uFPnWrJOsWH+Hz=WtE8e4Udqj+OWr522TykCTDzgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	[email protected]

Laura, Roger,

but then, why not transmit on 8.9 kHz? Or 30 kHz, or any other unused frequency? The ERP we can achieve on (V)LF will anyhow be so weak that no one will notice it, unless he's really looking for it.

73, Markus

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Lapthorn

To: [email protected]

Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:34 PM

Subject: Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations

Ýes, I agree with Laura. The former, Dave, is not achievable in the real world.

As long as no undue interference (an OFCOM phrase, well used) to official services is caused, everyone is happy. In reality it is easy to suppress signals above 8.3kHz down a very long way.

73s

Roger G3XBM

On 28 January 2014 21:18, LZ <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave,

You wrote:
> ... In other words NO signal must escape that is higher than that 8.3 kHz limit -That is it!! -end of!! Dave

No, wrong.
Right: "In other words NO *interfering* signal must escape that is higher than that 8.3 kHz limit..."

Laura

Gesandt von mein PettiFogPhone

http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
http://qss2.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, g3zjo Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, David Hine Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, PA1SDB, Peter RE: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Terry GW0EZY [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, David Hine Aw: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, LZ Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Markus Vester <= Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Stefan Schäfer Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Stefan Schäfer Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Stefan Schäfer VLF: 8.97/3 kHz test transmissions, Stefan Schäfer Message not available Re: VLF: 8.97/3 kHz test transmissions, jcraig LF: Re: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Chris

Previous by Date:	Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn
Next by Date:	Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn
Previous by Thread:	Re: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn
Next by Thread:	Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations, Roger Lapthorn
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]