[Lowfer] CORRECTION regarding 2E0ILY-N1BUG QSO

[N1BUG]

Thanks John.

I am well aware the QSO is an amateur-to-amateur first. I issued the
"correction" in an attempt to shut up the MAL-content, but he hasn't
shut up. I have resisted the urge to reply to some of his later
stupidity as it will only make things worse. In any case he's doing
a perfectly fine job making himself look like an idiot without any
help from me. ;-) Personally I am not convinced any of the
mysterious and unspecified QSOs he alludes to actually took place,
but if they did they were not legal amateur-to-amateur.

2200 meter TA has been my special interest since I first heard DC0DX
in January 2017. I got my Part 5 license, WI2XTC, in March 2017 with
the intent of being heard in Europe to further study propagation.
When FCC announced opening of the band for amateur use, that focus
immediately shifted to a TA QSO.

However, I'd had a major setback in the Spring when I discovered one
of my existing towers, very old Rohn 6, would not be strong enough
to reliably support one end of my planned LF antenna. I managed to
get the tower replaced before winter, but the setback nearly ended
my hopes for a 2017-2018 winter season transmitting. It was only
with considerable help from the 2200 meter community that I was able
to get the rest of my system built and operational this winter. I
just recently reached the point where success using one of the slow
visual modes seemed likely. In many respects this success belongs to
those who helped me reach this point. I am eternally grateful for
the help I received and to Chris for his time and effort to make
this QSO.

Although beaconing can be fun, my proposed TA propagation study
isn't really viable at amateur EIRP levels. My focus is therefore on
QSOs with anyone I can work. I am happy to spend the time to do it
on DFCW when required, or as a last resort QRSS. In between QSOs I
will (at times) beacon using WSPR-2, WSPR-15, and DFCW.

I am in the final stages of constructing an amplifier to give me the
other 3 dB we're allowed. It should be finished and ready for low
power testing with an existing power supply this weekend but may be
a while before it is on the air at full power.

73,
Paul N1BUG



On 03/30/2018 07:28 PM, JD wrote:
> No correction is necessary, Paul.  You stated accurately in your first
> post that yours was an amateur-to-amateur QSO.
> 
> Regardless of the views of any Scottish MAL-content or others on the
> euroflector, just any license is NOT automatically a license to
> communicate in the Amateur Radio Service. The US Experimental Radio
> Service license is a very different matter from a CEPT Experimenter's
> License (not a formal ITU nomenclature, AFAIK, but a regionally defined
> entry-level deal--an opportunity that ARRL has managed to overlook in
> their rush to degrade Technician class into something even less than they
> already have). A Part 5 license is _not_ a ham ticket, junior, "lite," or
> otherwise, and a Part 5 station is not normally authorized to communicate
> with anyone other than another ERS licensee. It's a major feat to justify
> such to the FCC.
> 
> Remember the good old days when we had publications of record and didn't
> have to depend on the collective "wisdumb of the net" to remember things
> for us? ;P I used to write for one of those, and don't recall anyone
> receiving special authorization to communicate with stations outside US
> jurisdiction, amateur or otherwise. There were plenty of reception reports
> each way involving Part 5 ops, and those wily Canadian hams managed T/A
> QSOs, some of which were coordinated a bit controversially; but there were
> no formal international in-band QSOs with one end in the US.  It was
> widely understood that would have to wait until the band was allocated to
> amateur radio here, and truth be told, I was surprised that so much time
> elapsed before someone got around to trying it.
> 
> Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, given that I did predict during
> rulemaking that 630 m would receive most of the initial attention--but
> even the most stalwart American pioneers of 136 kHz seemed to abandon the
> band for a time. I'm delighted to see interest reviving there, and FWIW, I
> consider yours and Chris' accomplishment to be legitimate exactly as you
> stated it!
> 
> 73
> John