[Lowfer] 1750 meter frequency for Part 5?

[Warren Ziegler]

Bill,
    That''s great news.
My comment about the watering hole was at least partly tongue-in-cheek
and I had hoped that it would stir up enough interest for people to
get back on.

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


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Bill Ashlock <ashlockw at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Warren,
>
> The 185.3 watering hole has not exactly dried up. I plan to resume 24/7 sending of a 1W (input power) Lowfer signal from Ellsworth and Andover on 185.300 +/- 0.5 Hz within a month. Both antennas and transmitters are still in place so it's just a matter of turning on the power. Like last season this is an experiment to determine the comparative signal properties from two identical E/W pointing loops over two quite different soil types. If you choose ~183K, for example, you will probably not impact the sites receiving my signals at a distance of greater than 200 miles from your base, but let's give it a try. The off-shore sites able to see your signal might be interested in looking for my signals as well.
>
> Bill
>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:09:25 -0400
>> From: wd2xgj at gmail.com
>> To: lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: Re: [Lowfer] 1750 meter frequency for Part 5?
>>
>> Thanks Bill, Jay,
>>
>>           I know that the dynamic range of sound cards is limited.
>>  I was thinking that it would be good enough to rely on the i.f.
>> selectivity of the receiver - e.g. 2.1kHz for an Icom R75 with the ssb
>> filter.
>> However, the real problem is that Part 15 stations are spread around
>> the band and the 'watering hole' has dried up as the 'grabbers'  have
>> gone away.
>>
>> I would like to operate between 180-186 somewhere to take advantage of
>> Europe 1's quiet period.
>>
>> Plan would be to operate from a remote site, probably around 100 watts
>> QRSS or WOLF.
>>
>> --
>> 73 Warren K2ORS
>>                 WD2XGJ
>>                 WD2XSH/23
>>                 WE2XEB/2
>>                 WE2XGR/1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Bill Ashlock <ashlockw at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Warren,
>> >
>> > Hope you can do some comparative sending between 137K and 160 -190K that will indicate the relative propagations and antenna efficiencies between these frequencies. Think you will find that the same loop will perform better at the 137K band in terms of antenna current but the effect of ground losses on the ERP may represent a variable that is hard to predict.
>> >
>> > As far as causing the least amount of trouble to 1W lowfers (like ME :), you would be better off sending at the lower end of the band. A freq of 160K to 170K for example.
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>> >> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:16:38 -0400
>> >> From: wd2xgj at gmail.com
>> >> To: lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>> >> Subject: Re: [Lowfer] 1750 meter frequency for Part 5?
>> >>
>> >> Hello the list,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry 1st message bounced (probably due to HTML format)
>> >>
>> >> Looking for suggestions for a good frequency in the 160-189 kHz band
>> >> for a Part 5 beacon/station.
>> >> Want to protect the Part 15 stations but would like something in the
>> >> 180-186kHz area so the beacon could be copied in Europe when the
>> >> station Europe 1 on 183khz takes it's evening break at 0000 UTC.
>> >>
>> >> Grabbers are not a consideration now that there are NO active grabbers
>> >> for 1750 meters.
>> >>
>> >> 73 K2ORS
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Mike-WE0H <we0h at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > Question?
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >> > WE0H/8
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: k2ors