Longwave Messages - Feb. 1998

Many of the links in this page are now outdated.

• Subj: Improved Ground System at LowFER RB
  Date: 98-02-28 16:29:29 EST
  From: bickingmwci (rbicking)
  The beacon RB at 186.92 kHz uses a Ham antenna (Uni-Hat CTSVR, 31' vertical with 17' dia. top hat) with series feed using a Curry loading coil (with ferrite core almost falling out of coil), several central ground rods and 24 radials, each 34' long. I had estimated my antenna resistance by substituting a carbon resistor for the antenna and it was about 77 ohms. "Transmitting Antennas and Ground Systems for 1750 Meters" edited by Mike Mideke, 1987, which was loaned to me by Bob Nickels, W9RAN, suggested that ground rods at the ends of the radials were beneficial.The weather was nice today (and we just had a good rain to soften the ground) so I decided to see if placing ground rods at the ends of some of my radials would lower the ground resistance and thus improve the signal.
  After several hours of pounding, I had installed four 5' copper pipe sections at the ends of four radials roughly 90 degrees apart. These were existing radials so I didn't increase the number. I also installed a copper pipe 5' long at the antenna base, adding to the existing copper-plated steel ground rods there. The DC current into the final went up 45 % and a measurement (by substitution) of antenna resistance showed that it went down to 47 ohms. NOT BAD!! Now, my next project will be to wind a loading coil to replace the Curry coil (9.6 ohms) and see if I can make further gains. I may also add additional ground rods when the soreness wears off. Let me know if it is louder.

• Subj: NDB transmitter for sale
  Date: 98-02-26 20:49:16 EST
  From: (Alex Wiecek)
  Hi all. Some of you who visit my page at http://www.ionsys.com/~magnum/longwave/longwave.htm may be aware that I've acquired an NDB transmitter. I was quite happy about it but that didn't last long. The NDB is not at my QTH yet, I'll have to go and pick it up myself. But I did contact our Technical Services office in London, Ontario to get some more particulars about it. I found out, much to my dissappointment, that this baby is just too big for my place so it looks like I'm gonna have to get rid of it. The following info is as I was told: older tube type transmitter, power about 40 watts. Transmitting in the range of 190 to 400 kHz. Comes with a built in test equipment. Everything is mounted in a 19 inch rack, 72 inches tall. It's a real collectors item. If anyone is interested or would like more info about this unit, please visit my page for regular updates or email me.
  73 Alex VE3GOP

• Subj: Woodpecker recordings
  Date: 98-02-26 15:10:55 EST
  From: GRL4522
  Karsten, Re: Your LWCA Message Board inquiry.
  Back in the 80's, I purchased an audio tape called "Sounds Of Shortwave" from Grove Enterprises, 300 S. Hwy. 64 W., Brasstown, NC 28902. It contains a 1-min segment about the Woodpecker, which includes an 11-second recording of these signals. Don't know if this tape is still available from them, but their website is www.grove.net/~grove and their phone number is 800-438-8155.
  Gordon Lowry

• Subj: Natural Radio Book
  Date: 98-02-26 14:00:26 EST
  From: bdieserworldnet.att (Barry Dieser)
  I picked up a book entitled "Natural VLF Radio Waves" by Toshimi Okada and Akira Iwai. It gets into some detail about naturally occurring VLF radio waves (whistlers, etc.), and has some info on circuits and antennas. I will try to find the time to post more on whats in this book after I have read it. The book is quite expensive, so if it turns out to be a dud maybe I can save someone else the money. So far though, the book looks pretty good.
  -Barry

• Subj: Update on DJL, UAB 200 groundwave range
  Date: 98-02-26 05:26:38 EST
  From: DJL4LOONS
  Just wanted to update everyone on my beacon. El Niņo has been no match for DJL ! The transmitter and antenna has so far survived many strong storms of 70+ mph winds, driving heavy rains, and lightning, all while continuously operating with NO problems and full signal output.
  I have updated my website - http://members.aol.com/djl4loons - with some new improved photos, including an inside view of the transmitter and a cumulative beacon log from my southern California QTH.
  I have done some tweeking of my receiving equipment and antenna tuning system for my mobile DX setup, and have noted my farthest groundwave reception yet of an NDB from here in Ventura County, CA. For the past several weeks, on a daily basis, I have noted that I can receive UAB, 200 kHz from Anahim Lake, B.C. around the clock, even at high noon - a signal path of over 1350 mi! It will be interesting to note if there is any difference in groundwave range during the upcoming spring and summer as a comparison- maybe UAB's ground system is frozen solid and gives better conductivity in winter.
  Take Care,
  Darwin

• Subj: A3O back!
  Date: 98-02-25 06:29:00 EST
  From: (Mike Lamanna)
  Well, after a long time off the air my LOWfer is back!!!! The 182.6khz beacon in Monroeville, Pa. is back on the air 24/7, IDing as A3O.
  Please e-mail, or send QSL's to:
  Mike Lamanna
  1415 James st.
  Monroeville, PA 15146
  Thanks!!!
  - Mike (WA3O)

• Subj: Strange signals in Lowfer band.
  Date: 98-02-24 03:45:25 EST
  From: mkarne19idt (Mark Karney)
  For the past several days, I have been hearing pulsed signals in the 160-170 kHz band. They sound like white noise and seem to be fairly wide band. The pulses last about 1 second and seem to come from a variety of stations as their strengths and center frequencies vary in discrete steps, similar to the way the Omega stations would alternate. The very strongest signal is on 162 kHz. So I am assuming it is somewhere in the Chicago area. I haven't heard these before, but I did improve my antenna system, so they may be new only to me. Anyone have any idea of what their identity is?
  Mark Karney N9JWF
  Barrington, IL
  • Reply 1: These are almost certainly GWEN stations...the Ground Wave Emergency Network, operated by the Air Force. It would be used for long-range communication between military bases in the event of a nuclear attack or other situations that might render HF communication useless. The bursts are a type of data packet (encrypted, of course) passed from one station in the chain to another. That's why these transmissions occur in clusters.
    With the advent of new military satellite systems, these stations are being phased out. However, the backbone of the system is still in service. Your improved antenna may be bringing them in stronger, but it's also likely that recent preparations in the Middle East may have prompted a more active operational mode at this time.
    Perhaps one of the other readers will remember which station is closest to you.
    73,
    John Davis

• Subj: Interceptor Electronics Keyer
  Date: 98-02-23 17:13:22 EST
  From: (Don Burns)
  Does anyone know what happened to Interceptor Electronics and the keyer that was advertised and written up in the Lowfer a couple of years ago?
  Don Burns

• Subj: Woodpecker recordings
  Date: 98-02-22 06:53:04 EST
  From: PSYPHYt-online.de (Karsten)
  Hi, has anybody recordings of those woodpecker signals from the sixties and seventies (tape, *.wav, realaudio) ???
  I need them for a scientific documentation I´ve planned.
  Thank you very much in advance.
  Karsten Krause
  • Reply 1: Sorry to say, I don't have such recordings myself, but other readers might. The following Web site may contain information of help to you. -- John Davis
    www1.etl.noaa.gov/othr/index.html

• Subj: Re: LF ham band in the US??
  Date: 98-02-21 13:07:40 EST
  From: wa0lhcjuno
  
  - ... . However, by working through the ARRL we
  - might be able to get the ball rolling.
  - .... Anybody interested??
  
  Y E S.
  WA0LHC

• Subject: Standard Broadcast Station Listing
  Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:55:48 -0800 (PST)
  From: Clifford Buttschardt
  This looks fairly interesting for the LOWFERS. Click on www.airwaves.com/fccdb.html
  Select "frequency" and then type in the frequency you want to check. Then click on "Submit Query". It should respond with the callsigns and locations of stations using that frequency. It will also provide the daytime power, night time power and antenna type.
  Good luck es 73..

• Subject: BOB Update
  Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:40:13 -0600 (CST)
  From: "bob a. hoffswell"
  LF is poor-a lot like spring/summer. I still hear BA, KRY, and RB when QRN is down, but now my neighbor has a new dog and "invisible" fence. The fence is a big loop fed with a 10kHz pulse that triggers a zapping-collar on the dog, if it tries to go outside the loop. I receive the pulse at all harmonics, up to about the BC band. Needless to say, it doesn't help LF reception! I haven't complained too loadly, since the band has been punk, but have mentioned that it might be nice to shut the fence off when the dog is inside. (If need be, I suppose I could probably get on the air at 10kHz and nail the dog in the house!) Tisk Tisk
  73 de Bob Hoffswell,AA9DH

• Subj: Interesting reading
  Date: 98-02-18 21:30:41 EST
  From: rfreemanradiks (Ron Freeman)
  While this isn't exactly "lowfer" material, a prototype is using 330 Khz and I think the overall subject will be of interest and somewhat scary. Take a look at: www.almaden.ibm.com/journal/sj/mit/sectione/zimmerman.html
  Ron Freeman W0LPZ

• Subj: 60 khz and 136 khz
  Date: 98-02-19 10:45:06 EST
  From: (Storer, Art E)
  Looking for info on equipment for 60 khz and 136 khz.
  Ed n5jeh

• Subj: INSPIRE Results
  Date: 98-02-17 21:42:26 EST
  From: d.jones160genie.geis
  The November 97 INSPIRE tapes have been returned with a sample spectrogram. Bill Pine says that no one received the MIR transmission.
  My bandwidth was restored from its spring 97 slump. I used a separate antenna for the WWV receiver instead of loading down the low-freq antenna with the HF coupling.
  David Jones

• Subj: BK temporarily off
  Date: 98-02-17 18:24:20 EST
  From: bhkoehlermmm
  LF beacon BK will be off the air while the shack is made ready for drywall installation. I expect I'll get BK back on in about 2 weeks.
  I'm in favor of an LF ham band, provided the part 15 operation is not affected. I renewed my interest in radio and improved my code speed by putting up an LF beacon and exchanging messages with LEK and ART. LF is a great way to get interested in radio and there is more experimenting done there because you pretty much have to build your own equipment.
  73, Bruce W0BK/BK

• Subj: For Sale Date: 98-02-16 21:41:59 EST From: (Robert W.P. Patterson)
  I was a bit optimistic about putting up a beacon at my QTH.. Soooo.. I have an unopened BEACON kit for sale.. New North Country AM88 beacon with paperwork first check for $65 gets it delivered. Check out specs at the North Country site: http://northcountryradio.com/am88.htm
  Bob

• Subj: Receiver Question
  Date: 98-02-17 01:24:46 EST
  From: (rbigg)
  K5BDJ sends. I have an old boatanchor BC-348. Is that old wheezer considered a pretty good low freq piece of gear? If so, I'll dust it off and get it going again.

• Subj: KRIZ-1620 ON
  Date: 98-02-14 00:58:06 EST
  From: pvtaytacbrigadoon (Pete Taylor)
  1620 KRIZ WA Renton noted on //1420 Feb. 13 at 2321 EST. Slight hum on the signal. They seemed to be on 1kw as I could null it to distortion. They always give dual KRIZ/KZIZ IDs even though KZIZ isn't on at night (PT-WA)
  I'm certainly glad I got Argentina and WPHG logged during the last two weeks!
  Good luck!
  EQPT.: Sony ICF 2010, Palomar loop
  Tacoma, WA 98422-1227

• Subj: Oops! -- Web site errors
  Date: 98-02-12 23:00:39 EST
  From: k0lremily (Lyle Koehler)
  While looking at my circuit for a "Simple LowFER Transmitter" today, I realized that the value of capacitor C1 in the output low-pass filter was an order of magnitude too low. Somehow when I transferred the circuit from my pencil sketch to a computer-generated figure, I must have been thinking of the filter used in my MF transmitter. Anyway, C1 should be 0.018 uF (0.015 uF and 2700 pF in parallel), rather than 1800 pF as shown in the diagram on my web site www.qsl.net/k0lr/. The transmitter will work with the smaller capacitor value, but harmonic suppression won't be as good as it should be.
  Earlier, Paul R. Jorgenson, KE7HR informed me that the ID.CFG file for the PC-based beacon message generator was messed up, causing the "BCN.EXE" program to go into never-never land.
  The diagram and text for the simple LowFER transmitter have been corrected, and BCN.ZIP now contains the correct ID.CFG file.
  Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subj: LF ham radio band in Belgium
  Date: 98-02-12 11:42:14 EST
  From: Rik.Strobbefys.kuleuven.ac.be (Rik Strobbe)
  Today we received authorisation from BIPT (Belgian FCC) for ham radio operation on LF, according to CEPT recommendation 62.01.E :

  Band  = 135.7 - 137.8 kHz
  Mode  = CW (A1A) only
  Power = 1 Watt ERP / 2000 Watt TX output power (yes, 2000 Watt !!!)

  All holders of a HF class licence can apply for a special permit.
  73, Rik ON7YD

• Subj: New BPSK program available
  Date: 98-02-11 17:35:33 EST
  From: (Bill de Carle)
  Hi BPSK, LOWFER enthusiasts:
  If you go to my web page: www.ietc.ca/home/bill/bbs.htm you will find a new program called AFRICA, which has lots of improvements over the old COHERENT program. The two systems are compatible - AFRICA talks to COHERENT and vice-versa.

• Subj: Finding parts for the LF upconverter project
  Date: 98-02-10 13:41:16 EST
  From: tbrannonteleteam (Timothy Brannon)
  Hello everyone,
  I just visited the online catalog for Dan's Small Parts in Montana at http://www.fix.net/dans.html
  It lists nearly all the parts needed to build the LF upconverter project I published in the January '96 LOWDOWN. This includes the hard-to-find Mini Circuits SBL-3 doubly-balanced mixer (at only $6.50!), 4.000 MHz crystals, transistors, and most if not all of the toroid cores and capacitors. I didn't see any PC-mount air trimmers for the LO circuit but there are some small panel mounted ones which should work as well. Looks like a goldmine for you experimenter-types. You can download the converter article from the Longwave Home Page in the files section or point your browser to http://members.aol.com/part15/lfconvtr.htm
  73 from Tim Brannon KF5CQ
  Dallas

• Subj: LowDown
  Date: 98-02-06 13:23:11 EST
  From: daveaa1axensei
  Gudday,
  re: John's comments in Feb.98 Lowdown concerning Webdom....
  This web/e-mail has taken us over to a degree until we learn how to manage it for our best use...
  I see the lowferqth.net as a 'resource' for the LowDown monthly. The LWCA page is a plus not only for the interested parties but to help continue the monthly LowDown publishing efforts...
  It is much more enjoyable and relaxing to sit down and read the articles and realize what I missed in the E-mail of it all... Besides the good stuff in in the monthly reading..
  John, keep up the good work and I think we all support you.. It's a nice association with no control freaks plus free-will participation without a lot of rules..
  I will soon finish a little break out box that doubles as a qrppp adaptor for the HF transceiver as well as an IF strip for the 0-500 khz. band.. All self contained, it lets me modulate/demodulate the laser stuff, the LowFer band, and qrp/pp the HF spectrum in ANY mode of operation including Coherent/BPSK.. It's like having Your best transceiver with all it's features covering from DC to Light.. It's very simple and very adaptable to any radio..
  It gets scary when you only need a few parts to do so much more with what you already have.. Next we will want to do anything with nothing.. hi..
  Before I spend any more time getting rid of megga noise around here with the sense wire, loop set-up, can anyone tell their experience with the MFJ noise reduction unit that does essentially the same thing?? I was thinking it may be a good building block to 'modify, add to'...
  Cheers from Dave - AA1A ' Western Tower - Brant Rock - Fessenden 1906 '

• Subj: RE: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-06 11:14:09 EST
  From: k0lremily (Lyle Koehler)
  Addresses for all ARRL Division Directors, and information on how to find out what division you are in, may be found at:
  http://www.arrl.org/divisions/
  The addresses are also included in every issue of QST.
  Regards,
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subj: RE: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-05 23:55:00 EST
  From: John Davis
  Following my post earlier today, Lyle reminded me that the upper side of the loading coil is where the high voltage resides. So, in addition to the measures I mentioned for reducing voltages to manageable levels at moderate powers, there's also the simple expedient of elevating the loading coil!
  Let's do the numbers, as they say on the business news shows. Lyle cites this example: "In a good LowFER installation, the reactance of the antenna should be below 5000 ohms, and the feed-point resistance at resonance will be on the order of 10 to 20 ohms." A resonant circuit with reactances of that magnitude will light a string of several neon bulbs on the antenna side of the loading coil, at one watt. But on the low side of the coil, voltages are only on the order of 3 - 5 VRMS!
  Scaling that up to 100 watts, the RF voltage below the antenna would be less than 50 VRMS. Lyle notes: "Above the loading coil, it's true that the voltages may exceed 10,000 VRMS. So you mount the loading coil high enough to keep the 'hot' part of the antenna out of anyone's reach." A simple but effective solution.
  Then, if one is also freed from the 15-meter limit, antenna reactance can be brought down and the voltage will be still lower.
  It's strictly my personal guess that the FCC might be willing to go up to 25 watts, which is sufficient for NDBs to span thousands of miles on occasion. But who knows? Lyle says--and I agree--"I'd settle for 10 watts, but 100 watts should be OK if taken with a small dose of common sense."

• Subj: LF Ham Band
  Date: 98-02-05 18:30:59 EST
  From: W5YY
  Hello Fellow LowFers,
  I stand with the questions and remarks proposed by Mr. John T. Mudd which are referenced elsewhere on this page. I would also ask "What is the purpose, and objective, or public necessity for the creation of a LF hamband?"
  Regards
  Mike, W5YY

• Subj: RE: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-05
  From: k0lremily (Lyle Koehler)
  john t mudd wrote :
    I am very curious, what could the possible advantage be to have
    the Lowfer bands brought into the amateur radio service?
    Perhaps I am missing something here, but wouldn't that just add a whole
    new layer of beauacracy (ok, I don't know how to spell the word), ARRL
    agenda, and probable CW requirements??
    I more than suspect that there are a great many Lowfers and Medfers that
    are not and do not want to be Amateur Operators (assumption on my part).
    Please help me understand where this is going and why??
  These are all good points, and even though I personally favor an LF ham band, it's not without some reservations. Here's my reasoning:
  An LF ham band would not necessarily be assigned in the 160-190 kHz range, although there isn't a lot of room down there, and 160-190 would be under consideration. But even if 160-190 became a ham band, Part 15 operation could continue, as it has in the 902-928 MHz range. Competition from "high-power" ham operations? From what we've seen in other countries, there hasn't been a great rush to populate the LF bands. Assuming a reasonable power limitation like 100 watts, and the physical limits on antenna efficiencies, there aren't going to be a lot of huge ham signals there. We already have to deal with intense power line carrier signals, foreign broadcast stations and GWEN interference. Frankly, I'd expect better DX from a low-power beacon on the bottom end of 160 meters than in most of the LowFER band.
  One positive aspect of a ham band in the 160-190 kHz range is that it would be a lot better than having it taken over by some other service such as differential GPS or even AM broadcasting. Now that would *really* wipe us out! The other thing to keep in mind is that if an LF ham band is going to happen, the LowFER community has no power to stop it. Even if we had the money to hire a lobbyist, we would be hard pressed to prove that preserving a piece of radio spectrum for a handful of experimenters is essential to the public interest. All we can do is to nudge the ham band a little bit in the "right" direction. I understand from Tod Olson that recent LF ham allocations in Europe had already awakened a dormant interest at ARRL headquarters, so the train is going to start moving whether we're on board or not.
  I wasn't going to state my own personal feelings on the code issue, but it seems to be unavoidable. The radio hobby is dying a slow death. Licensed or unlicensed, HF or LF, our numbers are dwindling. If we want to bring in the "new blood" that we desperately need to keep the radio hobby alive, we can't put unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who want to join us. It is politically unacceptable within the ARRL membership to do anything about the existing ham bands at this time. However, I feel that a new LF ham band should be available to all amateurs who meet the international treaty requirements for code proficiency on frequencies below 30 MHz. This includes Novice and Tech-plus licensees. Any allocation we might get will necessarily be very narrow, so sub-bands don't make any sense.
  A word of caution when talking to ARRL Board members. For them, taking a position on the code/no-code issue is like a politician taking a definite position on abortion. No matter what side you take, you're going to ---- off at least half the people. So it's best to keep the code out of the discussion, and emphasize the benefits of opening the home-brewer's paradise of LF to all classes of amateurs.
  73
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subj: RE: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-05
  From: John Davis
  While reiterating Lyle's point that a ham band and Part 15 are not mutually exclusive, I have a knuckle that can certainly attest to the validity of Cliff's point about RF voltages on electrically short verticals! While I'm glad that the ARRL board is concerned about health effects, though, I am surprised that they wouldn't consider the band useful with realistically safe power levels.
  There's no reason to believe an LF ham band would need more than 10 - 25 watts to be really productive...especially with removal of antenna restrictions.
  Without the antenna length limit, one could (for instance) use a 100-foot tower, and halve the RF voltage for a given power level. Or, one could increase the top hat--even use a T-top for loading, like NDBs do--and reduce the voltage further. Huge transmitting loops and line effect antennas would be permissible. The gloves would be off, so far as antenna size goes. Hence, no need for high power.
  While I'd love to see that done with Part 15, I don't believe it will ever occur. When the FCC reorganized Part 15 several years ago, there was a formal petition from ANARC to adopt the imaginary 15-meter-cylinder concept advocated by Ken Cornell. Though a perfectly reasonable proposal, it fell on deaf ears. Only a licensed service can remotely hope for that kind of accomodation, it seems.
  That's why I suggest adding an LF ham band and leaving Part 15 alone. We don't often get a chance to have our cake and eat it too, but this may be just such an opportunity if pursued thoughtfully.

• Subj: RE: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-05
  From: cbuttschslonet.org (Clifford Buttschardt)
  Hi Lyle and the group. The last week or so has been full of the notion to obtain a ham band below the broadcast band. This same effort occurred about two years ago. I've waited until now to reply since there have been a few new ideas brought forward (and for the power to return here in Central California!).
  The lowfer band idea has already been brought to the ARRL board by Fried Heyn of the Southwestern Division. He asked my advice at the time and at first glance a new band seemed useful. The second evaluation produced just the opposite effect--and the one mentioned here. We do not need to incur more restrictions when under part 15 we have nearly all the freedom needed! What we do need is a power increase to something meaningful. The health hazard produced above 1 watt removed ARRL from consideration almost immediately since our one kilowatt ham privilege simply does not apply. Technically, how many of you have seen the voltages produced when a short, E field probe is inductively loaded? At 185 KHz a transmitter producing 100 watts is lethal. For the experimenter a ten watt transmitter is about as high as one would want around the house.
  Obviously we do not want to even mention code-codeless-bpsk-ssb or any other mode as we have complete freedom now. As far as I can see, the only relationship to ham radio should remain as it is now and that is that most of the experimenters are hams and nothing more. 73 Cliff K7RR

• Subj: LF ham band update
  Date: 98-02-05 00:21:59 EST
  From: k0lremily (Lyle Koehler)
  To: lowferqth.net, LWCANews
  I have forwarded my e-mail messages and the responses regarding the creation of an LF ham band to Tod Olson, the ARRL Director for my division. Tod will attempt to get the ball rolling at ARRL headquarters. It's going to be a very slow process, but at least this is a start.
  In Tod's words: "When the time comes it will help to have ARRL members contact their Director to urge that they learn more about LF operation and support a request for a new band."
  When the ARRL Board is ready to consider recommendations for the new band, this will also be the time for individuals to let their division Directors know how they feel about the level of Morse proficiency that should be required. In other words, what amateur license classes should have LF operating privileges? An opinion expressed to the division Director may not decide the ultimate fate of amateur radio, but it will have more impact than the endless and often emotional code/no-code debates on the air and the Internet!
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subject: Re: LF ham band in the US??
  Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:11:35
  From: John Davis
  I share Bob's view that a "standard" high-power, chew-the-fat ham band would be rather pointless at LF.
  On the other hand, I think a good case can be made that our present LowFER limitations render practical, applied communication impossible on any consistent basis.
  The present situation allows for satisfying personal curiosity and accomplishing the occasional remarkable feat of super-QRP DX. It has even inspired development of BPSK techniques that can be used by us mere mortals.
  But I think the LowFER status quo has just about peaked. After their curiosity is satisfied, or the noble persistence required for this kind of DXing wears thin, what happens to a lot of LowFERs? They move on to other things. We don't hear that much from such pioneers as Max Carter and Mark Mallory any more. Even the current torch bearers, such as Cliff Buttschardt and Bill de Carle, now concentrate the majority of their efforts on HF ham bands.
  Why? Because there are more opportunities to apply technology to real-world situations, without voluntarily tying both hands behind their backs. Advancement of the radio art does, at some point, require a little more signal-to-noise ratio than Part 15 can reasonably accomodate.
  The challenge of Part 15 LowFERing has value. It ought to be preserved.
  Simultaneously, an amateur allocation, with modest power levels and the inevitable limited bandwidth, will have little appeal to the plug-and-play equipment-operator of ham. Yet it will hold forth hope of more tangible rewards for technical effort expended.
  In this view, Part 15 LowFER radio and LF Amateur radio can be apples and oranges to each other...having different uses, but both valuable, and both co-existing in adjacent baskets.

• Subj: LF Ham Band
  Date: 98-02-04 21:25:46 EST
  From: RMonty3aol
  I am a little confused as to why the ham group needs additional spectrum to do their thing. I could see low power experimentation but not kw xtmrs. I have been approached by some one from ARRL that is doing some research on the idea. I sort of discouraged it but am sure if there is money involved, a ham band will open up in the LF band no mater what anyone thinks.
  Bob Montgomery

• Subj: Re: Request for info
  Date: 98-02-04 19:21:18 EST
  From: k0lremily (Lyle Koehler)
  To: hfalesc4.net
  CC: LWCANews
  Henry Fales wrote:
  -   I am a classroom volunteer and an electronics experimenter. In
  -   my town there are some youngsters who would like to learn morse
  -   code. {etc}
  There is a schematic for a simple LowFER transmitter on my web page
  http://www.qsl.net/k0lr/
  Although we sometimes achieve distances of a thousand miles or more with Part 15 devices, the range will be much, much less without a really good transmitting antenna and the right receiving equipment (preferably in a very quiet location). The 160-190 kHz range would be ideal for your purpose because of the excellent ground-wave propagation. However, it is difficult to put up an efficient transmitting antenna system for that frequency, and I'm not aware of any "simple" receiver circuits that can cope with the high LF noise levels you'll find in most residential areas.
  You might consider a "MedFER" system operating in the 510-1705 kHz range. The antenna system would be much smaller than on LF (you are only allowed 3 meters). In the 1620 to 1705 kHz range, it's still pretty easy to find a clear frequency in the daytime. It will be tough to get ground-wave coverage over a 15-mile radius with simple installations, but 5 or 10 miles might be feasible. Some form of "mobile" operation isn't out of the question as a means to reach the students who are otherwise out of range.
  "Harry's Homebrew Homepage" http://user.tninet.se/~acz732k/#rx, maintained by Harry Lythall, SM0VPO / G4VVJ shows how to modify an el cheapo AM radio for CW/SSB reception on 160 meters, and of course the tuning range could be adjusted for MedFER reception. The circuit calls for a garden-variety dual-gate MOSFET, which are becoming hard to find. Dan's Small Parts http://www.fix.net/dans.html still has them, and the NTE222 replacement transistor should be suitable. To enhance the sensitivity of the radio, it could be coupled to the transmitting antenna, or used with a passively-coupled MF box loop of the type found at:
  http://home.inforamp.net/~funk/loop1.html
  There's also the option of choosing an operating frequency near a weak (but steady) AM broadcast signal. The signal would provide the beat-frequency oscillator needed for CW reception, so that an AM receiver could be used without modification.
  Inexpensive kits are probably available for MedFER transmitters. If you think the MF option might fit your requirements, I'll also try to get moving and post a simple MedFER transmitter schematic on my web page -- something that has been on my list of things to do for quite a while anyway.
  Regards,
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subject: Re: LF ham band in the US??
  Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:42:41
  From: John Davis
  Bob Bicking raises a very good point. I hope that an LF allocation would not be reserved for only the higher class licenses. Here's a great opportunity to encourage interest in CW and digital modes among newcomers.
  Something else that needs to be addressed early in the discussion is what bands are realistically available. Conard suggested "something around 400 to 500 KHz would be nice." It would be, but sadly it's not going to happen. That region is too heavily occupied.
  A US LF ham band is not a new idea. A consultant for the ARRL started a dialog with the Longwave Club of America about a year and a half ago, along these very lines. I'm afraid we didn't contribute as much to the discussion as we should have done. This current message thread has prompted a lot of the type of discussion we needed back then.
  Here's a little background which may help us focus on what's possible. The NTIA once recommended 160-190 kHz as a possible site for an LF ham band. However, 160-190 isn't the only possibility, and might not even be the best choice, for a number of reasons.
  Experienced LowFERs know about the European LF broadcasters in this region. The band is allocated in our region to the International Fixed Public service under Part 23, and fixed stations under Part 80, as well as government fixed and maritime mobile.
  Evidently, neither Part 15 operation nor the much higher powered GWEN have been a serious impediment to these services. But there are additional complications. First, 160-190 kHz probably could not be made available in Alaska or most of Canada, where aeronautical fixed services have primary status above the 60th parallel. Second, there's no hope whatsoever of Transatlantic QSO's, not even cross-band, due to the aforementioned LF broadcasters. Choosing the 160-190 kHz slot would be to resign ourselves to domestic operation only.
  For any chance of Transatlantic contacts, we would need to transmit below 148.5 kHz. As it happens, the 130 - 160 kHz band is allocated to the same type of services as 160 - 190, except that maritime mobile is also available for non-government use. Thus, it should not be an insurmountable problem to share at least part of this band. As Lyle noted earlier, though, there are still some users here, and we might have to settle for a rather narrow slot.
  These are the basic trade-offs we face. We can forget operation above 190 kHz, and we can hope not to be faced with an allocation below 130 kHz. Within that range, we may have to choose between a relatively wide allocation with no prospect of international communication, or else a narrower band with at least some chance of DX.
  73
  John

• Subj: Lyle's Suggested LF Ham Allocation
  Date: 98-02-04 15:13:09 EST
  From: John Hoopes
  Greetings All,
  I like a good fight! Where do I sign up?
  73s
  John/AB4MS/JDH

• Subj: Re: [Lowfer] LF ham band in the US??
  Date: 98-02-04 10:45:37 EST
  From: ws4sInfoAve (Conard Murray)
  To: k0lremily.net (Lyle Koehler), lowferqth.net, LWCANews
  CC: taoskypoint.com
  Hi Lyle and the group,
  I am interested in a good LF allocation. Either the 135-160 KHz band or something around 400 to 500 KHz would be nice.
  73 de Conard, WS4S

• Subj: LF Ham Band
  Date: 98-02-04 10:03:33 EST
  From: rbickingmicro.honeywell (Robert Bicking)
  Yeah! A real topband. If it is opened to tech class licensees, it might also have the benefit of prompting them to learn code and get a higher class license, bringing some growth back into ham radio. I'm in favor of it.

• CONSOL "LG" on the air
  Date: 98-02-04 09:15:45 EST
  From: ea2snjet.es (Jon Iza)
  Hi, LW and MW folks
  Maximo, EA1DDO, is planning to activate a portable station for the CQWW DX 160 SSB contest during the last weekend of February at the site of the CONSOL station LG (NW of Spain), using one of the three 110 meter high antennas. He got a picture of one of the antennas published on the Spanish ham journal "Radioaficionados". For those of you interested, the scanned photo is available.
  Be well.
  jon, ea2sn
  --
  Jon Iza ea2sn   since 1978   qrp'er at large!

• Subj: Re: [Lowfer] LF ham band in the US??
  Date: 98-02-03 20:06:13 EST
  From: ranickelmwci (Robert Nickels)
  Hi Lyle and the group,
  A ham allocation in the LF range certainly gets my vote. What better place to nurture the art of homebrewing and antenna experimentation than the part of the spectrum where it all began? (And it's a safe bet the PCS and Little LEO folks won't fight over it!)
  73, Bob W9RAN

• Subj: Lyle's Suggested LF Ham Allocation
  Date: 98-02-03 18:51:49 EST
  From: n4zvroanoke.infi (n4zv)
  Count me in!!!
  Bart Prater N4ZV/VA

• Subj: request_for_info
  Date: 98-02-03 17:11:16 EST
  From: (Henry Fales)
  Dear Sir:
    I am a classroom volunteer and an electronics experimenter. In my town there are some youngsters who would like to learn morse code. I believe that one of our schools is giving credit for learning a language to any youngster who can communicate via morse code only with someone else. In my case, the youngsters are all within a 15 mile radius.
    I am looking for a wiring daigram of a simple transmitter-receiver (if such a thing exists) which will operate in the 160 to 190 khz frequency band. I am also interested in subscribing to the LWCA Monthly Bulletin. My E-Mail listed at the top of the page and I look forward to hearing from you.
  Henry Fales, Jr.

• Subj: LF ham band in the US??
  * (Replies to this message are located above.)
  Date: 98-02-03 11:33:59 EST
  From: (Lyle Koehler)
  As more European countries are allowing ham operation in the LF range, this is a good time to start pushing harder for a similar allocation in the US. Many LowFERs have objected to the creation of a ham band in the 160-190 kHz range because they prefer things the way they are. That's understandable. Under Part 15 we are not saddled with the restrictions on emission types and automatic beacon operation that would be likely under ham regulations, and there is less emphasis on improving our signals just by throwing money at the problem.
  But what about a ham band in the 135-160 kHz range? There are ongoing RTTY operations that might prevent us from getting a US ham band at exactly the same frequencies used in Europe. But it should be possible to get a small slice of spectrum near 140 kHz that would allow "cross-band" intercontinental communication attempts on LF.
  Until now, the ARRL has not put much lobbying effort into an LF ham band, because it frankly is not a hot issue among the membership at large. If anything is going to happen, it will require the support and recommendations of those who have expertise and interest in LF operations. LowFERs are a very small group with little organization and absolutely no political clout. However, by working through the ARRL we might be able to get the ball rolling. Anybody interested??
  Lyle, K0LR

• Subj: JDH Schedule
  Date: 98-02-02 22:30:09 EST
  From: W5YY
  Hello John and fellow LowFers,
  I saw your post and will be listening intently for your signal here in Navarre Beach, FL (20 miles east of Pensacola, FL). I'm just now returning to LoFer monitoring after a very long absence. In the last two weeks I have managed to copy "RED and "YD". These are the only two LoFers that I have logged so far.
  I'm trying to rid my environment of man made noise, and have had some progress.
  I don't have the ability to copy BPSK at present, so I'm glad to see that you will be on CW for a while.
  Regards, Mike W5YY

• Subj: news from jdh
  Date: 98-02-02 15:01:03 EST
  From: (john hoopes)
  Just a note to let everyone know that JDH will switch to a straight CW format. Seems conditions are not especially good and QRM is gradually increasing so CW will prevail for now. By the way, I have a home E-Mail address which is . How is that for an E-Mail address!
  73s de John/AB4MS/JDH

www.lwca.org

potrzebie