[Lowfer] Medfer TX Loop Question(s)??

Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:34:06 -0600

Sorry if I got anyone angry. This reply was supposed to go to a personal
email address, but I missed the automatic reply address in the software on
the server. Anything I say is just my opinion and not to be taken as an
insult to anyone. I would welcome that the Lowfers and amateur operators can
get along and share any bands that we operate on. There is room for everyone
to advance the new techniques and have fun experimenting. If the bands go
amateur, I would never stop experimenting with new equipment, software,
antennas or beaconing. It all is an extremely important part of LF
operations whether running higher power or QRP levels.
73's,
Mike>WE0H
http://www.geocities.com/we0h/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Jonathan Jesse
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Lowfer] Medfer TX Loop Question(s)??

Bill brings up some good points about keeping 1750 the way it is but misses
one important point.  Some LOWFERS are not licensed hams and an official
Ham allocation would knock them out until they got licensed, if they wanted
a license.  If there's to be a VLF allocation, I hope it's down at 135 khz
like the Eu's and 1750 remains regulated and license free.

73,
Jon W1JHJ

At 09:54 2/18/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>>You know what I think, who cares if it is a bit big. As long as someone
>>doesn't crank up a big amp, there won't be an interference problem. I bet
>>many a Lowfer antenna is bootleg anyhow. Just so it doesn't get out of
>hand.
>>I hope the band goes amateur this year.
>
>I couldn't disagree with you more!! I doubt if any of the 'regulars' are
>running illegal antennas and/or power and I'm sure this comes across to
them
>as a bit of an insult. My comment below has to do with the "15m max"
>provision in the Part 15 regulations. There are two camps that interpret
>this differently, but they are both sincere in their reasons for their
>interpretations - not an "FCC won't care anyway" attitude. The reason why I
>hope the 160 to 190 band stays 1w (and my 15m interpretation of the antenna
>size holds up) is that it puts everyone on a level playing field and any
new
>antenna design or digital signal processing technique, or whatever, gets a
>full and complete test from 100s of different distances, and all sorts of
>propagation conditions. That's what science and engineering development is
>all about, and like it or not, that's what most of us are doing here on
this
>band.
>
>Bill

----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
_______________________________________________
Lowfer mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer