Past Longwave Messages - May 2001

Drake R-8 For Sale
Posted by Dave Robinson on May 01, 2001 at 07:21:39

100 khz to 30 MHz, excellent condition, $425/Best offer

BBC 198 kHz tx at Droitwich is down.......
Posted by Lee Reynolds on May 02, 2001 at 07:41:10

......between 0900-1800UTC until May 16th.

This may give the real night owls amongst us the opportunity to snag Radio 4 Longwave from Scotland or maybe Polskie Radio.....

Lee

Wanted: manual for CEI VLF-354 Receiver
Posted by Roy Morgan, K1LKY on May 02, 2001 at 11:03:52

Wanted: Manual for:
CEI VLF-354 Receiver.
Rack mount, solly state, VLF receiver.

Costs paid, or trade other manual copy.

Thanks,

Roy roy.morgan@nist.gov

LEK summer schedule
Posted by Lyle Koehler on May 02, 2001 at 11:21:10

LEK will continue to transmit on 186.700 kHz during the summer, but the mode will be 12 WPM CW (identifier and weather info). WOLF mode is available by request.

F.C.C.
Posted by Donald R. Moler on May 02, 2001 at 15:24:25

I finally got through to the FCC to gather information on the top hat on a 15 meter antenna for the 1750m meter band. I learned that someone else also called about the same subject. After talking to a number of people I reached Rich Fabina at 301-362-3021 and he said in his 26 years at the FCC no one has asked this question before. He agreed with me that a symetrical flat top hat does not radiate and therefore probably not be part of the heigth of the antenna and that I could go ahead and use the 40 foot top hat on top of a 15 meter vertical. He also said if someone else decides otherwise there would be a hearing on the subject. He also said mounting the antenna on top of a pole or structure has been ruled out. Any antenna for this band that is a kit or one builds more than five antennas is illegal unless it is certified by the FCC. I also talked to Rich Young at 202-418-2440 about getting permision to operate 100 watts for one year. I will fill out form 442 and send it in. I should have recorded the conversation. I think I will get something in writing from Rich just to be safe. It sounded like the FCC has not been following this band too much and before any of us start taking down antennas I would get something in writing and have the FCC spell out the rules a little better. Don Moler N8BKR Girard, Ohio

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Mick Reed on May 03, 2001 at 14:12:50

I'm glad that you got someone to 'okay' your interpretation of the rule. However, I'm not sure that this helps anyone else in Lowfer land, or that it really means much.

Like you were told, the tophat is "probably" not part of the height, and "..if someone else decides otherwise there would be a hearing..". Do you think that this phone conversation with one person really contributes to an official Lowfer rule? One that we can use to compete for a 'lowfer record?'

Is Rich Fabina some engineer, or executive type? Did you ask? I'm not trying to rip you apart, but I honestly don't see how other Lowfers could benefit from this. Someone else could call the FCC and get a different answer, don't you think?

There could be SEVERAL reasons why no one has asked Rich Fabina about these 15 meter antennas in 26 years. Could you tell what he meant when he said that?

There are three questions which could help Lowfers, which could hopefully be written into the Part 15 someday:

1. Is the tophat really legal, and is it included in the 15 meters or not? (how do you measure it?)

2. Is a loading coil really legal, and is it included in the 15 meters or not? (is it 'wire?')

3. Is a ground plane (radials, sheets, etc) really legal, and is it included in the 15 meters or not?

I'm sure I have sounded rude, but I do believe that you are honestly trying to help the Lowfer state-of-the-art and I do appreciate it. I just think that a phone call alone won't substitute for a revised Part 15. Personally I would not change my mind about the interpretation based on your phone call, even though I believe that you are being honest.

Mick reedmi@engr.orst.edu

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Tony Levstik on May 03, 2001 at 14:49:01

You mentioned seeing about getting permission from the FCC to run 100 watts. I was just wondering what frequency that would be on ? if they ok it.

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Donald R. Moler on May 03, 2001 at 17:30:51

Mick, I agree with you and I don't consider you rude because I was more confused after I talked to Rich Fabina then before I called.. He is an engineer with the FCC but He did not seem to be that knowledgeable about antennas. It took a long time to get to him and he sounded like he had the authority to grant me permission (as he did) to use the 40 foot top hat on top of a 50 foot tower. I intend to pursue this further I would like to have the part 15 rules written so as to include a better difinition of antennas. So the next step will be to find out how one goes about getting these additions to part 15. `So I will contact more people there and fill out more forms and travel to the FCC office if need be. If I get permission I will operate 100 watts on 185 KHZ Only to see if I can be heard across the pond. I talked to a fellow that runs the web site "radio waves below 22 Khz" and he said there are broadcast stations on the lowfer frequencys over there. Don Moler N8BKR Girard, Ohio

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by John Andrews on May 04, 2001 at 11:45:36

Don:

While I appreciate your zeal in pursuing these questions, I'd like to enter a caution at this point.

My understanding is that the Part 15 160-190 kHz allocation was not done for experimenters. I believe the original intent was to provide an unlicensed short-range medium for things like language labs, translation services, and so on. While the lowfer community has done some very interesting work in this range, there is no reason to believe that the FCC should support our endeavors. For example, given the current issues about power companies and energy policies, I can easily imagine a negative regulatory reaction to any service that might possibly interfere with power line carrier communications. No rulemaking procedure would be necessary; all they would have to do is issue a memorandum regarding something like loading coils or ground systems, and our nice hobby would be mostly gone.

Having lost a number of battles with the FCC and the FAA over the years, I can certainly testify that neither being a nice guy nor having razor-sharp technical arguments will always lead to victory.

On your other issue, I would suggest chatting with some of the LF crowd in Europe before picking a frequency. 185 kHz is very rough even in the eastern U.S., given the 2 Megawatt station in Germany on 183 kHz.

John Andrews, W1TAG

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Les Rayburn, N1LF on May 04, 2001 at 14:04:31

Unfortunately, I have been out of town on an extended shoot for the past month. While in Ohio, I spoke briefly with Don on the phone, but I was unable to visit his home, or speak with him at length.

First of all, let me say that I believe Don is sincere in his efforts to build a first class beacon and also well intended in asking the FCC for clarification on Part 15 rules as they apply to lowfers...

However, I think that his efforts are misguided and potentially dangerous to the hobby in general.
The intention of Part 15 is to limit the range of transmission, not to encourage shattering DX records. It is likely that if this type of communication continues, the FCC will hold hearings and we can expect to see severe limitations spelled out for our use of this frequency range.

Further, Don has stated that his goal is to
"set the DX mark for this band"...I assume that he means to break the lowfer record set by Mike Mideke and Sheldon Remington many years ago...

However, he also seems bent of proving that other lowfer antennas, such as that used by Lyle Koehler, LEK are "illegal" under Part 15. I frankly cannot understand Don's efforts in this regard.

Lyle has contributed more to this hobby than almost anyone I can think of...and attacking his accomplishments is not a great way to gain respect among the LF crowd.

I share Don's view that tophats do not radiate, but I also have no doubt that his 40 foot tophat and my own flattop would be more likley to be ruled "illegal" in future hearings, that Lyle's metal roof groundplane would.

Don, I encourage you to put more effort into the construction of your beacon, and less effort into getting the FCC to endorse your interpretation of the rules at the expense of someone else's. For over 20 years, lowfers have operated beacons under these general guidelines:

1. Limit power to 1 watt input.

2. Loading coils and grounds don't count in the
15 meter length limit.

3. Keep the harmonics to a minimum.

There has always been disagreement over tophats,
tuned counterpoises, etc. These are old arguments and I think that discussion of this points is always welcome. Asking the goverment to decide, however,
seems ill advised.

If you want to gain respect in this hobby, then I suggest you contribute by trying to advance the state of the art,
as Lyle has done for years.

And for a guy who wanted to break the lowfer distance records, why the sudden switch to wanting to operate a 100 watt transmitter?

The challenge of this hobby has always been trying to push your signal further within the severe limits of the FCC rules.

73,

Les

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Bill Ashlock on May 05, 2001 at 00:04:45

Don,

The following comment indicates you have something to learn about this band:

“I talked to a fellow that runs the web site ‘radio waves below 22 Khz’ and he said there are broadcast stations on the lowfer frequencys over there.”

In the winter season it is not uncommon here on the East Coast to receive these broadcast stations scattered over our band at >400uv/M and this is enough signal to copy with only a diode and headphones!

I applaud your efforts to seek the truth about the rules relating to acceptable transmitting antenna configurations. As an engineer, with white hair, I have spent most of my life in seeking the truth and most often have found this to be the only way to move forward. It appears the truth in this case, however, is not well defined, and could have a dark side, so please be very careful not to push our FCC into a making the kind of quick "policy statement" that none of us want.

Regards,
Bill WA

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Larry Putman on May 05, 2001 at 12:09:28

Don,

Just curious Did you get any world records with your antenna designs on the ham bands?
Since hams are always searching for a better antenna design why do you think your designs didn't catch on? Why do you assume you "have more experience with short antennas than anyone in this group"?
That is a pretty blatant statement! How could you possibly know what experience anyone in this group has?

73

Larry WB3ANQ

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Joe T. Penrod on May 06, 2001 at 11:48:22

There has been an awful lot of discussion as to what the FCC will or won't allow, some of you have even gone to the FCC itself. This is a big mistake. The FCC is just another ineffective bureaucracy. They can't even do anything concerning the use of illegal drift net bouys. The Japanese are so well aware of this that Japanese companies actually manufacture illegal (out of band and overpowered) bouys to sell in the USA! The FCC allowed this even though it has all but destroyed the 180M band. And let's not even discuss how promptly and efficiently they respond to complaints about RFI. Secondly, they aren't amenable to new ideas. Slow scan TV originated in the early '50's (1953 or 1954); SSTV didn't gain official recognition until 1968 - 15 years! Every other country in the world (or so it seems) has a ham long wave band. Their governments didn't have any problems making up their minds about this. And these are the folks you expect to approve a LOWFER antenna design?(!) So far as I'm concerned, LAY LOW: >>don't<< call attention to yourselves. More likely than not, you'll come to regret it.

FW: SAQ transmission, Preliminary Info
Posted by John Davis on May 06, 2001 at 18:59:36

Hi All

For your information

73 Johan Bodin, SM6LKM

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Lars Kålland Till: SM6LKM Datum: den 5 maj 2001 12:44
Ämne: SAQ transmission, Preliminary Info.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

There will be a transmission from GRIMETON RADIO/SAQ on frequency 17,2 kHz CW with the Alexanderson alternator even this year, on Sunday July 1st at 08:30 and 08:45 and another transmission at 12:30 and 12:45 UTC.

QSL-reports are kindly received via Amateur Radio on the following frequencies with the call "SA6Q":

CW on LF 136 kHz and HF 7015, 14035, 18075, 21030 kHz.

SSB on HF 3740, 7050, 14215, 18145 kHz.

Two stations will be used.

Please note that we are also using LF 136 kHz this time.

QSL-reports also via e-mail: info@alexander.n.se or via fax: +46-340-674195 or via my home call SM6NM via bureau or direct via callbook address.

Information will later also be available on website www.alexander.n.se

A FINAL INFORMATION will be sent out via e-mail a day or so before the transmission.

Have a nice summer!

Regards

SM6NM Lars KÅLLAND

Re: F.C.C.
Posted by Robert Bicking, W9RB on May 06, 2001 at 21:44:00

Ken Cornell's booklet on "The Experimenters QRP Band" dated 1972 gives some history on Part 15. He states that the first mention of it was in CQ in 4/68 and many people thought that it was an April Fools article. Ken's booklet gives some excerpts from Part 15 which makes it clear to me what it was intended for. Paragraph 15.4 (f) gives examples: Wireless microphones, phonograph oscillator, radio controlled gaarage door opener and radio controlled models. In general, field strength is spelled out and limited for Part 15 operation. One important exception is given in 15.203 for operaton between 160 and 190 kHz. here there are only 3 limitations:
1. Input power to final RF stage doesn't exceed one watt.
2. Emissions out of band must be suppressed 20 dB or more.
3. Total length of transmission line plus antenna doesn't exceed 50 ft (later revised to 15 meters).

I doubt that with the more pressing issues facing the FCC, they want to devote much energy to this question. I would say, use whatever interpretation you feel comfortable with. The one used for years has been a cylinder of height plus top hat radius of 15 meters.

Regarding the FCC, my mother had a saying "Let sleeping dogs lie".

RF-590 Manual Needed
Posted by Dave Robinson, AG8B on May 06, 2001 at 23:53:06

Anyone know where I can get a manual for this Harris receiver? I will pay for reproduction and shipping costs.

Site Outage Followup
Posted by Webmaster on May 07, 2001 at 22:29:20

The lwca.org site was out of operation for a time somewhere between 0700 and 1100 UTC on Tuesday morning, the 8th of May. Our hosting service had to install a new hard disk drive in the server.

We believe they were successful at recovering all the data and backing everything up, but if any part of the site is suddenly missing or doesn't work as it did before, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks.

-John Davis

To Larry Putman
Posted by Donald R. Moler on May 07, 2001 at 23:10:10

Larry, 20 Years ago I built the best short verticals for 40, 80, and 160 meters. To date there has not been anyone that has come close to the efficency of my antennas and that is not a blatant statment. I am very good at what I do when it comes to physics or electronics. [redacted] I have an 8 foot rotatable dipole for 80 meters that will outperform a full size at 25 foot above the ground with out a counterpoise. I work across the pond with my 8 foot vertical on 160 meters and most times win out in the pile ups. If any one had a better antenna i would have heard about it. I have been on 1750 for only a few months and have one of the best antennas on that band. If you want to come over to my house and test these antennas your welcome. In fact if you don't agree that these are the best short antenna you ever tested I'll buy you a steak dinner. My short verticals for 160 will outperform a full size because I can control the E- field to a small area where I can eleminate the losses. Any one is welcome to come over to my house and play with the antenns I built. I have been planing to write an artical for QST for some time but have been putting it off. ( getting lazy in my old age) I wrote one in 1972, june issue and it (with my picture) is on the cover.
But the rest of you guys are right, the FCC is the wrong place to go to resolve anything. I am taking down my 1750 meter antenna and I will try to give it away to the guys that have permission to run 200 watts on 136 Khz. I think they are in W.V. Look for me on 160 meters with my short vertical or my short rotatable 2 element yagi on 160 meters that I built 15 years ago. Donald R Moler N8BKR Girard, Ohio

Re: Drake R-8 For Sale
Posted by Richard Strohkirch on May 09, 2001 at 15:25:05

Do you know what year it was manufactured? Possibly an R-8a or R-8b?

Re: Drake R-8 For Sale
Posted by Dave Robinson on May 09, 2001 at 23:44:28

It is the original Drake R-8 receiver.

Short Verticals
Posted by Robert Bicking, W9RB on May 11, 2001 at 20:51:09

I have also used short verticals including my 31 foot with a 25 foot dia top hat for LowFER "RB". My experience sez that even when talking short verticals, bigger is better. Started with a 31 foot vert. with 17 foot top hat and it worked pretty good on 40 and 160 m but when I put up a 55 foot tower with a big beam (44 feet by 25 feet) and shunt fed it on 80 and 160 using the beam as a top hat, it worked even better. Also, the beam has 3 elements on 40m and works very good there. Professor Yagi was right. See my web page at www.qsl.net/w9rb/ for details on both antennas. Remember, a 15 meter antenna (Part 15 rules)on 1750 meters is essentially the same as a 0.15 meter antenna (5 inches!)on 17 meters!. Operating from places like Aruba has convinced me that, if you have the room, you can't beat a full sized 4 square on the low bands, these guys have the signals that can be heard when the band is dead.

Fwd: New 22M activity
Posted by Bill Ashlock on May 11, 2001 at 22:46:23

Hi John,

I was wondering what position the LWCA will take concerning the Message Board's acceptance of the 22M band as an acceptable message topic. Seems the Lowfer Reflector has been buzzing the last three days on this topic. 22 meters is certainly not longwave, but the spirit of basic regulation-free Part 15 transmission (within bounds of course) and the challenge of very low power make these two bands very similar in nature. I would personally vote for inclusion.

No change of the club name to the P15CA, please. ;~)

Regards,
Bill Ashlock

Re: Fwd: New 22M activity
Posted by John Davis on May 11, 2001 at 23:27:36

Hi Bill,

It seems to me that the 22 Meter activity (*there is an explanation below the signature for readers who aren't yet familiar with this subject) is a perfectly legitimate topic for inclusion on this Message Board.

As you say, while it's not longwave, a lot of what we do at LF hinges on Part 15 of the FCC R&R, and this is an extension of that. There is also plenty of precedent.

By default, The Northern Observer and later The LOWDOWN were once the principal sources of "HiFER" information, along with other Part 15 info. The HiFER list was right in there with the LowFERs at one point. Eventually, 13.560MHz went out of fashion and the only "HiFERs" left were folks putting up beacons out in the desert with any operating parameters they liked, quite apart from any rules. That was when the listing fizzled out.

So, I see no reason for us not to revive interest in 13.560MHz on the Message Board. After all, one of the uses I put the band to previously was to key my LowFER and MedFER transmitters remotely. I'd say that's close enough to be "longwave related!" :-)

In fact, it seems to me that if we get a number of permanent or semi-permanent occupants of 22m, a migration of messages to this board would be a quite logical development, as posting frequency and schedule information to a message board makes it widely available to current and new readers for an extended time.

73,
John

*P.S. -- Background for readers who aren't familiar:

In addition to the input-power-and-antenna-length provisions of Part 15 at 160-190 and 510-1705kHz, there is a field-strength limited provision of some interest between 13.553 and 13.567MHz, a little ways below the 20 meter ham band. In fact, the wavelength here is about 22 meters; hence the subject line of Bill's message.

Operation is permitted in this band with any size or height of antenna, so long as the resulting field strength is no higher than 10mV/m at a distance of 30 meters, and certain frequency stability criteria are met (see the zipped PDF document of FCC Part 15 Rules, available in our "What is it?" page under the LowFER/MedFER link on the LW Home Page).

Although this is the highest radiated field strength of any Part 15 subband, you should also be aware that it is also one of the inherently noisier bands. Its primary occupants are things like plasma generators, diathermy equipment, and other Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) devices. These are not intentional radiators for communications purposes, but they do tend to leak a lot of RF, so our puny signals have to contend with all of their leftover energy.

In the "old days" I mentioned earlier, interest waned largely because the theoretical DX possibilities (20m is a great band for daytime propagation if the ionosphere isn't too unsettled) could seldom if ever be realized through all the noise. Nowadays, we have alternatives like QRSS, PSK31, BPSK, and WOLF, which may give us a fighting chance at communicating a bit.

Already, Dexter McIntyre (NC) is on with a regular signal, and other experimenters are preparing to do so on at least an intermittent basis. Who will be the first to copy whom? Only time will tell.

Re: Fwd: New 22M activity
Posted by Joe T. Penrod on May 14, 2001 at 22:36:09

My choice is also to welcome renewed 22M activity. Even though it's not long wave, I don't think it pays to be too "provincial" in these matters. After all, there are lots of "hams" who come into long wave seeking new challenges. You don't say "no" to them, do you? Sounds like a good way to bring in new members and participants. We all can learn from one another.

LF allocation by FCC, sounds like they haven't forgotten it!!
Posted by Robert Bicking, W9RB on May 14, 2001 at 22:49:50

This is from the latest ARRL Newsletter:

In other matters, the Executive Committee was told that an FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making still is expected soon in response to the ARRL's petition, RM-9404, seeking Amateur Radio access to the low-frequency spectrum. Filed in late 1998, the ARRL petition asks the FCC to establish LF allocations in the vicinity of 136 kHz and between 160 and 190 kHz.

LOWFER Antennas and the FCC
Posted by David Stinson AB5S on May 15, 2001 at 09:03:16

Good Morning, Everyone.
I'm sort of a "ghost" from the past. I worked with Mike, Sheldon, Carl,
and many others to break the 1000, 2000 and finally transcontinental marks back in the mid 1980s while I was in Nevada.
As far as I know, 8LXJ and I still hold the record for SSB at 800+ miles.

First- on the antennas. A lowfer antenna is so electrically short it is really just a big, leaky tank circuit. The top hat and ground plane are the biggest part of the capacitor plates. The "antenna height,"
is measured to the top of the top hat. The hat itself adds only its thickness- not its length- because it is a loading/tuning device, just like the loading coil. And an "umbrella" type with its ends drooping down actually subtracts from effective height by its vertical cross section. It's a capacitor plate- that's all.
You can look up the formulas on this if your wish. You won't find anything about the physical size of a loading device effecting the radiation.
It's all about losses and effective height above ground.

On the FCC- We've been down this road and I hate to see people playing with fire again. It's the major reason I've "come out of retirement"
to write this. Asking the FCC for help is like poking a sleeping dragon.
He might help you- Maybe. He's much more likely to fry you and anyone standing even close by and eat you, because that's the quickest way he can solve his little problem and go back to sleep.
The people who hold that hearing are going to be political appointees with no real technical knowledge. The have "technical advisors," but they generally check their palm pilots for email while he's talking.
Their first concern is NOT your happiness. Their first concern is making the problem of YOU go away so they can get to their power lunch.

With the above you have a true, technical defense for building any tophat your heart desires, as long as you keep its design and radius such that it does not become a part of the effective height.
If the FCC comes calling- and you're more likely to be abducted by aliens at this point- you have the technical facts on your side and a bunch of us who will tell them so.
I was on a government reservation with hams from Los Alamos ,
Livermore and Sandia Labs hams all eyeballing my antenna, which was a 45 foot vertical "T" with 100 feet of flat tophat and 100 feet of chickenwire counterpoise. I discussed it with these PhDs and they agreed with me.

So please- do yourself and all us standing close by a big favor-
leave the bloody dragon alone and he'll leave you alone.

With kind memories of all the people I was lucky to know,
Dave Stinson AB5S

Re: LOWFER Antennas and the FCC
Posted by Dave Stinson on May 15, 2001 at 10:26:57

Postscript:
For those who would say that such a large antenna was the reason for breaking those records-
I was the listener (on beverages), not the sender.
And I still have tapes of many of them here somewhere.
Including Brice Anderson from mid-continent to Nevada-
over a 1000 miles or close to it. He was running that
"35 foot/15 foot" dummy load ;-) and a scrupulous 1 watt.
So it can be done.
73 Dave S.

ELF CFA
Posted by Steve on May 15, 2001 at 16:51:52

Anyone have experience with ELF Cfa designs?

Best-
Steve http://www.starshiptechnology.homestead.com/index.html

www.vlf.it update
Posted by Renato Romero, IK1QFK on May 16, 2001 at 05:13:14

RADIO WAVES BELOW 22kHz has been updated with two new articles:
-RDF SOFTWARE, WHIT A FIXED LOOP By R. Romero -GOING LOW IN FREQUENCY WITH LOOP ANTENNAS By P. Schmalkoke Thanks for the collaborations.

Re: LOWFER Antennas and the FCC
Posted by Bill Ashlock on May 17, 2001 at 13:31:23

Hello Dave,

I read your comments above and uttered "right-ons" after every sentence, particularly your 'sleeping dragon' analogy of the FCC. However after some reflection on the subject it seems to me that assuming the worst of the FCC and this 'running scared' approach of ours over the years has probably helped lead this organization down the isolated, just get rid of it, path that we find them on.

At the Hamfest, I just attended, I picked up a number of back issues of QST magazine and was pleased to read numerous articles about the FCC's interest in hearing both sides of controversial topics. The name Hollingsworth (I believe that was the name), an FCC official, keep showing up in these articles and his statements at various Hamfests and other speaking engagements showed a genuine interest in fairness, and in fact, person commitment in making Ham radio work. It looked like blatant violators of acceptable on-air conduct were given a more-than-fair opportunity to respond to charges (even via phone conversations).

I therefore feel that the FCC cannot be counted out as a friend in some of these Part 15 questions and it's even possible that they view our experimental results as valuable input in future decisions. We can, and should, make them accountable to the job that they are assigned to(after-all they work for us), and assuming the worst of the FCC does not improve the situation.

Regards Bill AShlock Beacon WA

22 Meter Activity
Posted by John Andrews on May 21, 2001 at 15:42:18

For those who do not subscribe to the Lowfer@qth.net mail list, there are currently two stations operating under the Part 15 regulations on 13.5555 MHz.

NC (W4DEX) is sending the NC callsign in QRSS (slow speed CW) mode with 3 second dots. Nominal frequency is 13.5555 MHz. This signal has been widely heard in the U.S. and Canada starting on May 20th.

LEK (K0LR) is sending the LEK identifier at 12 wpm, followed by 50 seconds of key-down and 10 seconds of dead air. Nominal frequency is 13.5554 MHz

John Andrews, W1TAG

22 Meter and 7 Meter activity
Posted by Les Rayburn, N1LF on May 22, 2001 at 07:10:18

Some of us are looking into putting QRSS beacons on 49MHz. The "7 Meter" band offers some exciting summertime propagation that could make it a nice diversion during the warmer months too...

Cheap 49MHz RC controls can be easily modified into CW transmitters. However, a good 6 Meter DX setup is needed on the receive side. A yagi and possibly a pre-amp may be required for serious weak signal work.

Thanks to Jonathan for drumming up all this interest!

Sources for cheap 49MHz Transmitters?
Posted by Les Rayburn, N1LF on May 22, 2001 at 21:53:29

A bench test today of three transmitters from very cheap RC cars ($7 to $10 price point) revealed their flaws. The transmitters rely on a resonant LC circuit to determine their output frequency. It is listed as 49.86MHz...but it reality seems to be closer to 500hz wide or so!

Also the LC circuit drifts too much to make them useable as CW or QRSS transmitters.

I assume that the RC controls with more complicated steering use a crystal controlled transmitter, but I also have to assume that they must use some form of modulation to let the model know what to do? Any RC buffs out there who would know for sure.

Cars of this type seem to sell for around $25 and up.

Also 49MHz HT's, baby monitors, and the like can be had for cheap at thrift stores...but they all use FM modulation. How difficult would these be to modify for CW use?

With my limited technical skills and very limited time, I'd rather modify than build from scratch. Any and all suggestions welcome!

Something different.....
Posted by Lee Reynolds on May 23, 2001 at 15:01:27

> "Listeners may be aware that the UK Royal Navy are celebrating the
> Centenary of the Royal Navy Submarine service with a gathering of UK and
> overseas submarines in the Clyde. This year is also the 75th anniversary
> of operation of the GBR transmitter (Rugby). > As part of this celebration 'It is hoped' that a special A1A Morse code
> transmission from the GBR long wave transmitter will be made.
> For those with an interest in VLF reception please listen to 16kHz (yes 16
> not 60kHz!) on Tuesday 29th May 2001 at 1200GMT and 1345GMT."

13.560MHz Beacon (TLTX)
Posted by Tony Levstik on May 25, 2001 at 13:57:30

I will be running a beacon on 13.560MHz (2mw) 1/4wave longwire. ID = TLTX The beacon will be on 7:00am - 7:00pm on weekends.
I also plan to get my Lowfer beacon (TLTX) back on in June.

[13] Got crystals?
Posted by Mike AJ1J on May 25, 2001 at 22:09:42

I have 6 old crystals, cut for 13.5425 (x2 = CB ch. 11) -- just a bit too low, and in sealed cases. But, if one of the hifers wants to attempt a tweak, I'd be pleased to donate them to the cause.

Mike AJ1J, LowFER "CA"
Carmel, NY

22m beacon in VK-land...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2ZTO on May 26, 2001 at 02:46:29

G'day All,

For those who want a challenge and are of optimistic nature I have put up a beacon on 22m - 13.555450 MHz. It is running VFSKCW (DFCW) at 30 sec/dot.

Power output is 50mW into a 1.6m high mobile whip mounted on a magnetic base on a steel roof about 1.8m above the ground.

Using Argo in 30 sec mode here seems to smear the dots together and overlaps in time. Using the 10 sec mode setting seems to be clearer. The ID is "RIC" and for those not familiar with VFSKCW the trace should look something like this:-

__---__ __ __ ---__---__

The upper lines don't actually look like three dots - I have used ascii characters - in reality the upper lines are the same as the bottom lines.

The upper lines represent "dashs" and the bottom lines represent "dots". This assumes you have your receiver set to output high frequency audio for high frequency RF - i.e. USB.

Locator is QF56ik for the beacon.

The best times for VK - US is around 0600 UTC to 1100 UTC - so you will have to be keen in that part of the world !!!

Best of luck !!!!

73s Steve Olney (VK2ZTO/AXSO - QF56IK : Lat -33 34 07, Long +150 44 40)
=============================================
HomePage URL:
http://www.qsl.net/vk2zto

Re: 22m beacon in VK-land...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2ZTO on May 26, 2001 at 02:55:46

Final try...

___---___...___ ___...---___---___

The dots (...) are actually spaces. That is they don't actually appear in reality - I put them here because the formatting of the message seems to take out consecutive ascii spaces. Confused ? You ought to be :-)

73s Steve

22m VK beacon...
Posted by Steve Olney on May 26, 2001 at 06:27:37

Correction to power - measurements show only about 8mW being radiated.

Steve VK2ZTO

Re: 22m beacon in VK-land...
Posted by Webmaster on May 26, 2001 at 12:34:15

:: The dots (...) are actually spaces.
:: I put them here because the formatting :: of the message seems to take out :: consecutive ascii spaces.

Sorry about that, but it is a consequence of the message appearing in a Web browser. Browsers are supposed to ignore white space in HTML code, with the consequence that plain text cannot be rendered with more than one space between characters.

There are two ways to   get     more       space.

The technique I used in the sentence above to place the escape code for non-breaking space (meaning that it doesn't force a line break) right in my message. I alternated actual spaces with the code &nbsp; to achieve the result.

The other technique would be to use pre-formatted text, with the <PRE> tag ahead of the text and </PRE> after it.

  Anything  between  is  rendered
in  a  monospace  font  with  the
plain-text   formatting    intact
.  .  .      s o m e t i m e s.