[Lowfer] 6.1m

[WA2BPE]

Hi John,

Now I think I understand the objective here; to (in essence) have a VHF window
similar to experiment in as in LowFERs, MedRERs, and HiFERs under the Part 15
"umbrella".  To that, I say, go for it!

I know of some of the ground-breaking work that has been done in the weak signal
area by many of the LowFER people and that should not be discouraged.  It is
interesting to note that a high percentage of LowFER operators/experimenters
have their Amateur license too.

The issue of licensing for a LF HAM band is both controversial and tricky.
Personally, I have mixed thoughts about it.  Somehow, the interests of those who
presently do not have a ticket need to be addressed; their efforts should not be
diminished plus the very nature of an allocation open for ideas without undue
regulation.  Similarly, I can see where a "different" organization of the LF
structure could be useful too.  In fact, it is the work done in this
"unlicensed" Part 15 area that has generated the interest to create a HAM band
allocation there.  In this regard, success and ingenuity have thus been the LF
ops own "enemy"; many ideas now being tried on the HF and VHF amateur bands
(within legal limitations).  At this point, I have said way more than is right
for me (interested but not yet involved) to propose the ultimate fate of any LF
allocation.  Perhaps the biggest change would to be to change the transmitting
antenna restrictions specific to LF and redefine power levels. We all know that
it is the antenna that makes the major difference in any system, all other
aspects remaining fixed.

Thank you for taking the time to (briefly) explain the "goal' here; I apologize
for not following the threads more closely as to the thought process in place.
My intention was not to stomp on someone else's toes.

73,  Tom - WA2BPE

John Davis wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WA2BPE <wa2bpe@exotrope.net>
> To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net <lowfer@mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Lowfer] 6.1m
>
> >OK, what *is* the point, please?  Perhaps everybody is laughing at me rite
> now
> >and this whole thing is a spoof????  Sri, but I didn't look at the website
> and
> >I take six m *very* seriously.
> >
> >Tom - WA2BPE
> >
>
> A perfectly legitimate question, Tom, but the point of 49 MHz is really the
> same as it is for LowFERs and MedFERs and HiFERs generally.  In your own
> words:
> "Also, don't forget the limitations and ramifications of part 15 "
> Those limitations are the point.  To be able to do _anything_ in the way of
> DX at that sort of QRP is a very rewarding and gratifying pursuit to some of
> us.
>
> It's the very reason so many people are of two minds about an amateur
> allocation at LF.  On one hand, we'd all love to achieve some of the things
> we know would be easier without antenna limitations.  But on the other hand,
> we know the nature of the game will change if the QRO crowd has access to
> the whole band too.  Is a puzzlement, no?
>
> 73,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Lowfer@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer