Past Longwave Messages - December 2004

Subj: Re: LowFER "XX" is on the air
Posted by Lloyd Chastant on December 05, 2004 at 08:31:45.

Did some over nite on the 185.3 window and had a nice capture on Eric's XX hr in Maryland...several others in there(total of 5)
de Lloyd W3NF

Subj: Re: LowFER "XX" is on the air
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 05, 2004 at 12:26:12.

Hi, all,

Here is Lloyd's capture -- nearly 1100 miles: http://www.nutstreet.net/images/XX/XXinME.jpg

73
Eric

Subj: LowFER BK on the air
Posted by Bruce Koehler (bkoehler@spacestar.net) on December 06, 2004 at 10:00:11.

LowFER BK is back on the air after repairs from lightning damage. Mode is 12 WPM CW with a brief CW weather report. Current operating frequency is 184.7KHz, transmiting from Shell Lake, WI. Reception reports are welcome. BK copied LEK, and LEK copied BK in CW mode on Sunday, Dec 5.

73, Bruce BK, W0BK

Subj: Re: HiFER Report de IL
Posted by Peter on December 07, 2004 at 13:32:59.

Gee, I forgot the type of pattern I Saw, coulda been shark tooth!

BA - "...old and falling out of use become totally extint!"

Eric, that's honest, Bill's encouragement to a "T."

Subj: Re: 2004 LowFER DXpedition webpage
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 09, 2004 at 14:53:56.

Please check out this special edition of Alan Melia's G3NYK LF Propagation Forecast: http://www.nutstreet.net/radio/lowferDXpedition/2004/propforecast/

Eric

Subj: Part 5 License Questions
Posted by Charlie (cvest@cox.net) on December 09, 2004 at 15:53:52.

Could someone provide information on how to apply for the part 5 license , along with examples of the answers that are most likely to gain approval. Would like the most modes,power,frequencies that are easiest to obtain.
THANK YOU,
...Charlie...KC0EH...COV...

Subj: Re: Part 5 License Questions
Posted by John Andrews (w1tag@charter.net) on December 09, 2004 at 16:06:30.

Charlie,

You can do a lot of your own research at the FCC's Experimental Service website:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/els/index.cfm

If you do a "Generic Search" on the frequency ranges you have in mind (135-138 kHz, 160-190 kHz, etc.), you will find out who has applied for and gotten licenses. Armed with the call signs, you can then dig out all of the details of their applications, including drawings and supporting documents. You will note that there are a lot of industrial licensees, particularly aircraft and car manufacturers, who have licenses in this range for doing EMI compatibility research. But you should recognize the names of the "Lowfer" types who have applied.

As a casual observation, the 135-138 kHz stuff seems to be granted more quickly than the 160-190 kHz apps. There are some exceptions, though! Frankly, luck seems to play a big part in how quickly the wheels will turn. The applications are routed through an inter-agency group to evaluate conflicts with other use of the spectrum, homeland security, and so forth. If your material lands on the wrong desk, good luck.

John Andrews

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Webmaster on December 09, 2004 at 23:04:58.

Ron's file is now available for download at:
http://lwca.org/library/reference/NDB/AviationBeacon.xls

Since it is 362KB in size, you will probably want to right-click the link and choose to save the file to your hard drive.

John

Subj: Re: VLF-transmitters on Hawaii
Posted by John Davis on December 10, 2004 at 22:26:10.

In a message posted 25 October, 2004, Harald writes:

>>> What VLF-transmission facilities exist on Hawaii? What kind of aerials do they use?

The only VLF facility in Hawaii at this time is the US Navy station NPM on 21.4 kHz at Lualualei, on the island of Oahu. It appears to employ a top-loaded vertical antenna system 458m in height.

I have not found any pictures of the antenna farm on the Internet, but LWCA member Kriss Larson took some photos that appeared in our publication, The LOWDOWN, a few years ago. We have color versions which will be posted at this site's Library section some time during the winter.

John

Subj: New Message Board Feature
Posted by Webmaster on December 12, 2004 at 22:36:32.

Now that I've finally had a bit of time to do some further coding, I've been working behind the scenes to tidy up the way the LW Message Board is administered. At long last I also have something to announce that may be of direct use to you, our valued reader.

Effective immediately, messages sent to this board can optionally be viewed in chronological order.

If you click the Chronological Listing button in the menu box on the regular LW Message Board page, it will switch you to a listing of messages in reverse chronological order. That is, the newest post will always be at the top of the list, even if it is part of an old ongoing thread.

This feature is intended as a supplement to the regular list, as most people will probably find the threaded listings useful most of the time. However, I suspect it will be very handy on occasion.

The chronological list is not very full yet as I post this, but it will grow automatically with each new message posted.

Also please note: because it is intended to display the most recent messages, it will probably not list any beyond approximately 30-60 days of age.

Feel free to check it out at the button on the LW Message Board list page, or with this link: chrono

I hope you find it useful.

John

Subj: MedFER Beacon KSK on the air
Posted by Tom Zankowitz (tzank81@hotmail.com) on December 13, 2004 at 18:38:01.

Hi,
New MedFER Beacon "KSK" is on the air!
Frequency: 1703.5 KHz
Location: Beckley, WV
Gridsquare: EM97js
Will be on most nights from about 0030 - 0300Z. Time may vary with more activity on weekends. Hope to be on 24/7 in the future. Also hope to put up website to show operating log.
TNX/73
Tom/KC8KSK
tzank81@hotmail.com

Subj: Re: MedFER Beacon KSK on the air
Posted by Tom Zankowitz (tzank81@hotmail.com) on December 14, 2004 at 06:15:51.

OOPS!
Forgot mode - CW.

TNX/73
Tom
KC8KSK

Subj: Re: UNID NBD Query
Posted by Steve Ratzlaff (steveratz@eoni.com) on December 01, 2004 at 15:19:40.

I should check the message board more frequently!
POS, Trinidad recently (perhaps 6 months ago) changed its ident to TRI.

Steve

Subj: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Richard N1QQ (rjward@hotmail.com) on December 02, 2004 at 18:48:45.

Does ANYONE publish a list of USA L.F. frequencies and calls? (200 - 400 Khz. area)??? I hear so many NDB's, beacons, etc. but cannot find much in the way of help.

Subj: 2004 LowFER DXpedition webpage
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 02, 2004 at 20:09:11.

Hi,

I've posted a webpage for my LowFER DXpedition scheduled for Saturday, December 11 through Monday, December 13.

Posted are pictures and plans. After the event will be post-event data, pictures, etc.

http://www.nutstreet.net/radio/lowferDXpedition/2004/

73
Eric

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by John Andrews (w1tag@charter.net) on December 03, 2004 at 11:56:48.

Richard,

A couple of URL's:

http://www.airnav.com/

http://worldaerodata.com/

John Andrews, W1TAG

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Richard N1QQ (rjward@hotmail.com) on December 03, 2004 at 15:08:46.

Thanks, John..It is a way to identify most..but one at a time. I would really like to buy a book or find a source that lists them all in U.S. by call and/or frequency.

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Larry Putman on December 03, 2004 at 19:16:40.

Hi Richard,

Go to the BeaconWorld website: beaconworld.org.uk

They have a complete listing of the available free and commercial pubs relating to NDB's

Also you can go to http://www.classaxe.com/dx/ndb/rna/
This is an on line dynamic log of all beacons heard in North America and Europe.

Good Luck

Larry WB3ANQ

Subj: LowFER "XX" is on the air
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 04, 2004 at 13:30:42.

Currently testing my dds exciter in stand-alone mode in preparation for CTN DXpedition.

Now DFCW60 0.2 Hz shift, 185297.0/.2, ID is XX at 1 watt.

This will run 24x7 for the next several days at least. Reception reports welcome!

73
Eric

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by John Davis on December 04, 2004 at 15:27:36.

>>> I would really like to buy a book or find a source that lists them all in U.S. by call and/or frequency. >>>

Michael Oexner publishes such a list. Check out details in the lower half of the lwca.org homepage.

Kevin Carey of MONITORING TIMES has an LF station guide that includes many NDBs as well. I don't have current information on price or availability, but you might try searching for it on their site.

John

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Ron (KC8IPK@aol.com) on December 04, 2004 at 23:37:14.

I saw this thread and have an X-Cel spread sheet of beacons in Canada, US, and some islands. It's pretty close to being up-dated. I've sent this spread sheet to Richard and John's E-Mail address. Feel free to pass it around. E-Mail me if you'd like a copy.
Thanks,
Ron

Subj: Re: LowFER "XX" is on the air
Posted by Lloyd Chastant (chastant@smart.net) on December 05, 2004 at 08:31:45.

Did some over nite on the 185.3 window and had a nice capture on Eric's XX hr in Maryland...several others in there(total of 5)
de Lloyd W3NF

Subj: Re: LowFER "XX" is on the air
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 05, 2004 at 12:26:12.

Hi, all,

Here is Lloyd's capture -- nearly 1100 miles: http://www.nutstreet.net/images/XX/XXinME.jpg

73
Eric

Subj: LowFER BK on the air
Posted by Bruce Koehler (bkoehler@spacestar.net) on December 06, 2004 at 10:00:11.

LowFER BK is back on the air after repairs from lightning damage. Mode is 12 WPM CW with a brief CW weather report. Current operating frequency is 184.7KHz, transmiting from Shell Lake, WI. Reception reports are welcome. BK copied LEK, and LEK copied BK in CW mode on Sunday, Dec 5.

73, Bruce BK, W0BK

Subj: Re: HiFER Report de IL
Posted by Peter on December 07, 2004 at 13:32:59.

Gee, I forgot the type of pattern I Saw, coulda been shark tooth!

BA - "...old and falling out of use become totally extint!"

Eric, that's honest, Bill's encouragement to a "T."

Subj: Re: 2004 LowFER DXpedition webpage
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (eric@nutstreet.net) on December 09, 2004 at 14:53:56.

Please check out this special edition of Alan Melia's G3NYK LF Propagation Forecast:

http://www.nutstreet.net/radio/lowferDXpedition/2004/propforecast/

Eric

Subj: Part 5 License Questions
Posted by Charlie (cvest@cox.net) on December 09, 2004 at 15:53:52.

Could someone provide information on how to apply for the part 5 license , along with examples of the answers that are most likely to gain approval. Would like the most modes,power,frequencies that are easiest to obtain.
THANK YOU,
...Charlie...KC0EH...COV...

Subj: Re: Part 5 License Questions
Posted by John Andrews (w1tag@charter.net) on December 09, 2004 at 16:06:30.

Charlie,

You can do a lot of your own research at the FCC's Experimental Service website:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/els/index.cfm

If you do a "Generic Search" on the frequency ranges you have in mind (135-138 kHz, 160-190 kHz, etc.), you will find out who has applied for and gotten licenses. Armed with the call signs, you can then dig out all of the details of their applications, including drawings and supporting documents. You will note that there are a lot of industrial licensees, particularly aircraft and car manufacturers, who have licenses in this range for doing EMI compatibility research. But you should recognize the names of the "Lowfer" types who have applied.

As a casual observation, the 135-138 kHz stuff seems to be granted more quickly than the 160-190 kHz apps. There are some exceptions, though! Frankly, luck seems to play a big part in how quickly the wheels will turn. The applications are routed through an inter-agency group to evaluate conflicts with other use of the spectrum, homeland security, and so forth. If your material lands on the wrong desk, good luck.

John Andrews

Subj: Re: NDB Frequencies
Posted by Webmaster on December 09, 2004 at 23:04:58.

Ron's file is now available for download at:
http://lwca.org/library/reference/NDB/AviationBeacon.xls

Since it is 362KB in size, you will probably want to right-click the link and choose to save the file to your hard drive.

John

Subj: Re: VLF-transmitters on Hawaii
Posted by John Davis on December 10, 2004 at 22:26:10.

In a message posted 25 October, 2004, Harald writes:

>>> What VLF-transmission facilities exist on Hawaii? What kind of aerials do they use? >>>

The only VLF facility in Hawaii at this time is the US Navy station NPM on 21.4 kHz at Lualualei, on the island of Oahu. It appears to employ a top-loaded vertical antenna system 458m in height.

I have not found any pictures of the antenna farm on the Internet, but LWCA member Kriss Larson took some photos that appeared in our publication, The LOWDOWN, a few years ago. We have color versions which will be posted at this site's Library section some time during the winter.

John

Subj: New Message Board Feature
Posted by Webmaster on December 12, 2004 at 22:36:32.

Now that I've finally had a bit of time to do some further coding, I've been working behind the scenes to tidy up the way the LW Message Board is administered. At long last I also have something to announce that may be of direct use to you, our valued reader.

Effective immediately, messages sent to this board can optionally be viewed in chronological order.

If you click the Chronological Listing button in the menu box on the regular LW Message Board page, it will switch you to a listing of messages in reverse chronological order. That is, the newest post will always be at the top of the list, even if it is part of an old ongoing thread.

This feature is intended as a supplement to the regular list, as most people will probably find the threaded listings useful most of the time. However, I suspect it will be very handy on occasion.

The chronological list is not very full yet as I post this, but it will grow automatically with each new message posted.

Also please note: because it is intended to display the most recent messages, it will probably not list any beyond approximately 30-60 days of age.

Feel free to check it out at the button on the LW Message Board list page, or with this link: chrono

I hope you find it useful.

John

Subj: MedFER Beacon KSK on the air
Posted by Tom Zankowitz (tzank81@hotmail.com) on December 13, 2004 at 18:38:01.

Hi,
New MedFER Beacon "KSK" is on the air!
Frequency: 1703.5 KHz
Location: Beckley, WV
Gridsquare: EM97js
Will be on most nights from about 0030 - 0300Z. Time may vary with more activity on weekends. Hope to be on 24/7 in the future. Also hope to put up website to show operating log.
TNX/73
Tom/KC8KSK
tzank81@hotmail.com

Subj: Re: MedFER Beacon KSK on the air
Posted by Tom Zankowitz (tzank81@hotmail.com) on December 14, 2004 at 06:15:51.

OOPS!
Forgot mode - CW.

TNX/73
Tom
KC8KSK

SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48:

While working on the message board software recently, it occured to me that I should sound you out on a possible change.

I noticed that we're still using one of the features of Matt Wright's original WWWBoard that increases the risk of e-mail spam for people who post here. If you use your e-mail address when sending a message to the board, it shows up above the message as a live link, like this:

Posted by Kermit F. on July 4, 1776, at 7:04:00

If this simulated header were real, you would be able to click on the name and have the mailto: address of frogk@okeefenokeesouth.net show up in your e-mail client so you could send direct e-mail to Kermit F.

Handy, but also risky, because any Web page on the Internet with an e-mail address in this form in it will eventually be 'harvested' by a spam robot. Even the webmaster@ address, which used to be sacrosanct, is a target of spammers these days.

So, my questions to you are these:

1. Would you like us to reduce your risk of getting spam if you post here?

2. How many people ever actually do use the clickable name in the message to send direct e-mail to anyone?

3. If you do presently use that feature, would you object to copying the URL text and pasting it into your e-mail program manually? (There are ways to hide the fact that it is an e-mail address until it displays on your screen, thus fooling many spambots.)

4. If you would rather have a clickable link, do you have Javascript enabled on your browser?

I'm betting almost no one will look at #1 and say, "gosh, no, I want all the spam I can possibly get." I suspect we might not even get a really strong response on #2. Still, I wanted to check with you all before doing anything that might disrupt an approach you may be comfortable with.

Send a followup reply to this post to let us know what you think.

Just so you'll be aware, the original board software wasn't very flexible when it came to changing features. It tended to choke if everything in a message wasn't in precisely the place it expected to see it. My recent modifications are giving us a lot more flexibility to try further improvements. Let us know what would be useful to you.

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Alan G3NYK on December 15, 2004 at 17:53:02:
In Reply to: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48:

hi John, I didnt realise that was clickable !! So LWCA is responsible for my 250+ a day spams !!.....only joking John. Keep up the good works.

Please make harvesting as difficult as possible. I usually put my address in the text of a message which does not become clickable but can be "cut & pasted"

Happy Christmas All

Alan G3NYK
alan.melia@btinternet.com

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Ray W2RS on December 15, 2004 at 20:05:09:
In Reply to: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48:

Hi John,

I agree with Alan. It's not too much trouble to cut and paste.

73, Ray

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Mike KI8IK on December 15, 2004 at 21:35:39:
In Reply to: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48:

John -

It doesn't really matter from that standpoint.

To a harvester there’s no difference between a "clickable" header and an address in the body of the message. Harvesting is done programmatically using the raw "source" web page.

To see what I mean look that the raw data for this message. If you're using Internet Explorer, select "View" then "Source" from the menu. You'll see the raw web page data that the harvesting program would process. Notice that my email address (KI8IK@comcast.net) shows up three times, once for the clickable header, once for where I typed it into the message body, and once in the "form" section.

The only way to prevent harvesting would be to remove all automatic references (The first and last in the raw format) and not type an easy to harvest address in the message body (Use something like "KI8IK at comcast dot net").

If you're that worried about harvesting a "better" solution would be to screen who has access to the forum and email groups.

Also, a harvester could have a field day grabbing hundreds of address using the archive pages. You may want to "scrub" those if you decide to limit automatically published addresses...

73,
Mike - KI8IK
Saline, MI

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Webmaster on December 16, 2004 at 02:26:54:
In Reply to: Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Mike KI8IK on December 15, 2004 at 21:35:39:

Hi Mike,

You have a good grasp of the extent of the problem. What you say is exactly why we have a spam section in the FAQ that encourages people to consider whether they want to use their e-mail address in the clickable header at all. If it's there, it's also in the followup form.

The only choice the original WWWBoard software gave us was to use e-mail addresses in the way it provided, or not to use them for live links at all. It was pretty rigid about the format of the individual message files, so until the recent changes, I didn't dare tamper much with them.

We did decide early on not to require the e-mail field, so one can simply leave it blank. I usually opt to do that. If you leave it blank but still want people to be able to e-mail you, the only viable spam-safe alternative at present is, as you noted, to put the address in the body of the message in disguised form.

However, since our modifications, there are ways to make text appear on screen without it being conspicuous in the HTML source code. The use of HTML entities in place of '@' and '.' and some of the individual letters, for instance, will still cause them to appear on screen as the correct characters but will fool simpler spambots. The technique cannot be used for clickable links, though, which is why I asked about willingness to copy-and-paste (unless or) until we develop other solutions.

Those other solutions can take either of two paths.

One requires readers to have scripting enabled in their browser, so I'm curious whether everybody does, or whether very many of our readers don't. The address won't reside in the file in plain text, but would be scrambled by our server when the message is created. Javascript code is then included in the message to let the browser descramble the text before writing it to the screen. It would really mess up a clickable link, though, if the reader doesn't have scripting enabled; or if it's not planned out well enough, you might not even see the full message.

The other approach leaves the address out of the message file entirely, and relies on the server to look up its parts from a database, assemble it, and send it to you as part of the HTML when you request the message. ASP and PHP are the two most common tools for server-based page customization, but we would likely handle it with a regular CGI application. The user would see no difference on the message list page, but it would require quite a few changes to the message board software to make it work with the new program.

That's why I'd rather make any changes to the message file itself at the time it's being written (ie, a bit of Javascript, if it will work for enough readers). That sort of minor format change within the HTML file is now transparent to the administration software after our recent modifications. However, making that software cooperate with another, entirely separate application could be a bit more time consuming.

So, that's why I'm gathering feedback to see what our readers think and how they have their browsers configured. Then I'll know better what sort of task it will be.

We do intend to rewrite the existing archive files to remove addresses. Many of those are outdated, so there's little point in keeping them anyway. Future archives may or may not contain addresses, but if they do, they'll work similarly to the method we pick for new messages.

The e-mail groups are already member-only, and there are no archives with addresses in them for spambots to harvest.

John

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Webmaster on December 17, 2004 at 03:28:19.
In Reply to: Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 16, 2004 at 02:26:54.

Here is a real live test of the cut-and-paste-enabled version of the e-mail address line. Notice that, while it all appears as plain text between the parentheses above, only some of the letters actually appear in the HTML source code. They have been replaced in the message file (which the spam robots search) with HTML character entities, but your browser interprets them as letters and punctuation marks for you. As of now, if you type your e-mail address into the appropriate box on the message posting form, it will appear beside your name in the manner above.

I continue to solicit your input on this matter, and will reconsider some time in January whether we ought to continue in this fashion, or whether we can return to clickable links through some other trickery that better protects you from spammers.

Thanks for your attention.

John

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by John Bogath on December 18, 2004 at 11:58:26.
In Reply to: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48.

Why do we need to post e-mail addresses at all, anyway ?!? It's a forum; communicate with a "followup". If you must send an e-mail to someone, why not use the "LOWDOWN" listings for e-mail addressses.

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by Frank J. Lotito K3DZ (fjlk3dz@wmconnect.com) on December 18, 2004 at 18:17:35.
In Reply to: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 15, 2004 at 15:12:48.

I understand that QRZ.COM uses a graphical means to disguise e-mail addresses. They say it is an "e-mail harvest proof" scheme. I don't know, you might want to look at what QRZ.COM is doing.

I see no reason why a COPY-PASTE method can not be used if a LWCA Message Board reader wants to directly e-mail someone posting a message or reply on the Message Board.

GL & Happy Holidays!

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by John Hoopes (hoopesj@alltel.net) on December 17, 2004 at 12:44:50.
In Reply to: Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by Webmaster on December 17, 2004 at 03:28:19.

Spam blocking might be a moot point at this point in time. It seems most ISP's have pretty good filtering software to eliminate SPAM. Some still gets through but not like it did a couple of years ago.

Anyway, I think the idea is a good one.

Have a great holiday season John.

Regards,
John

Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts
Posted by John Davis on December 17, 2004 at 13:47:25.
In Reply to: Re: SURVEY: E-mail URLs in Message Posts posted by John Hoopes on December 17, 2004 at 12:44:50.

Thanks, John. Good to hear from you again.

It's true that e-mail spam blockers are prevalent, but they too often chuck out the baby with the bath water.

In order to receive as much mail directed to LWCA as I can, I have to leave some e-mail accounts as much unfiltered as possible. Unfortunately, unless you operate your own mail server, you can't turn off all spam blocking these days! Almost every ISP now group-blocks IP addresses that some blacklisting service identifies as having handled "unsolicited commercial email" at some point in time. This is completely apart from blocking specific domain names or catching subject lines that clearly indicate spam, and you the user have absolutely no control over it. Your provider generally won't even admit they're doing it--but they are! (If you have an AOL account, for instance, just TRY e-mailing someone at netzero, or vice-versa!)

This practice violates the spirit behind every Internet protocol you can think of, yet they do it because they're sick of hearing their customers gripe about all the spam. Their solution is comparable to turning down the RF gain on a receiver...you'll eliminate some of that annoying static, and if you coincidentally happen to eliminate some of the signals, well, maybe you'll just never worry about what you didn't hear in the first place.

I, for one, am not happy getting only 60-80% of my legitimate e-mail! Furthermore, that 60-80% arrives a lot slower than it should because the network is still clogged with all the junk being sent, even if most of it never reaches the intended victim. Spam blockers are just a Band-Aid over a mortal wound.

If e-mail is ever again going to work as it should, spam HAS to be reduced at the source. I don't kid myself that this is going to happen any time soon, but I'm just making sure we're doing our small part when the revolution comes...er, when the public tires of getting everything in their inboxes but their legitimate mail and demands a real solution.

:-)

John

Radio Prague considering using longwave for English & German
Posted by Mike E Terry on December 16, 2004 at 13:51:18:

Radio Prague may carry its programmes in English and German on longwave in the future. In answer to a listener's question on Sunday's Mailbox programme, Radio Prague Director Miroslav Krupicka said: "It is not reality at this moment but we are considering going on longwave in English and German. It's a longwave that is used by a domestic channel of Czech Radio, Czech Radio 1 - Radiozurnal, which broadcasts on the FM network and on longwave [270 kHz, 750 kW]. We are in talks with this station to give us a certain space on longwave in order for us to be heard beyond the border of the Czech Republic in, say, Germany, Austria and Poland because longwave travels further than medium wave, for instance, or FM, so we would be heard in Central and Eastern Europe on longwave quite well. Of course, this is an addition to shortwave broadcasting. We are always on shortwave, we will stay on shortwave, but in addition we are looking for tools in order to be heard both in the Czech Republic and in Central Europe. In the Czech Republic we are currently on FM in Prague in English, this is a service for tourists, people visiting the Czech Republic, businessmen and so on. It's quite appreciated by the audience from what I have heard. And to expand on longwave would be quite nice, so we are working on it, but it is not yet reality."
http://medianetwork.blogspot.com/

CQ Crossband QSO Schedule - VE7SL
Posted by Steve McDonald on December 17, 2004 at 17:24:01.

Encouraged by the recent succesful crossband QSO (2200m / 80m cw) with
Roger, K0MVJ near Duluth, I am hoping to be able to promote further LF
activity and interest in this two-way mode. Accordingly, I will be calling
CQ tonight on the following schedule, followed by a short listening period
for replies on both 80m CW (3.555mHz) and 40m CW (7.055mHz).
I will be transmitting in QRSS20 using a dash/dot ratio of 2:1 (40sec
dash/20sec dot). Times are UTC.

0300 - 0316 CQ (137.5735)
0316 - 0320 Listening HF
0330 - 0346 CQ (137.5735)
0346 - 0350 Listening HF

I will repeat this schedule through to 0650Z. The only thing that would
disrupt the transmitting schedule would be a QSO exchange after which I will
call CQ again until the end of the scheduled period.

To be logged as a valid QSO, the following minimum information exchange is
required by both stations:

RECEPTION OF BOTH CALLS
RECEPTION OF YOUR SIGNAL REPORT
CONFIRMATION ('R') OF RECEIPT OF YOUR SIGNAL REPORT BY THE OTHER STATION

A typical 'ideal' QSO might look like this:

LF QRSS: CQ VE7SL K
HF CW: VE7SL VE7SL VE7SL de W9XXX W9XXX W9XXX K
LF QRSS: W9XXX VE7SL 5NN K
HF CW: VE7SL de W9XXX RRR RRR OOO OOO BK
LF QRSS: R R R K
HF CW: VE7SL de W9XXX FB 73 73 TU SK SK
LF QRSS: (not required) 73 TU

The "OOO" is my signal report, and can only be sent once you have BOTH calls
OK.
All exchange of information must take place via the crossband mode and no HF
transmissions from this end will be made. If initially you have not copied
one or the other call 100% it is fine to ask for that information only to be
sent again...ex:

LF QRSS: W9XXX VE7SL 5NN K
HF CW: VE7SL de W9XXX NEED UR CALL AGN PSE (or "MY CALL") (or "BOTH CALLS")

Once you have both calls OK then you can send the "O" report.
The same would apply for missing signal report or 'Roger' report...just ask
for a repeat.
It is also not required to copy a full call in one complete pass. You may
get "VE7?L" the first time and "V?7SL" the next time which then gives you a
complete call. BTW...these are not my rules(!) but long-established
protocols for both EME and meteor-scatter contacts as well as LF work in
Europe.

Anyway...it's just an experiment for tonight to see if there is any
interest.

Steve / VE7SL / CN88iu / Mayne Island, B.C.

QRSS20 137.5735 400W
QSX 3555kHz / 7055kHz

Web: "THE VE7SL RADIO NOTEBOOK" at http://www.imagenisp.ca/jsm
[L.F. Loops] [Tuna Tin DX] [H.F. Maritime DX] [Crystal Radio DXing]
[2200m Band] [NDB DX] [Boatanchors]

Wellbrook ALA1530
Posted by Dave Martin (k2zu@comcast.net) on December 18, 2004 at 23:11:01.

I'm considering buying one of Wellbrook's amplified loops, most use will be below 500KC, and would appreciate information or comments from users. Thanks.

Re: Wellbrook ALA1530
Posted by Ray W2RS (w2rs@amsat.org) on December 19, 2004 at 13:00:31.
In Reply to: Wellbrook ALA1530 posted by Dave Martin on December 18, 2004 at 23:11:01.

Dave,

I've had the LFL-1010 up for about two years, and have no complaints. It won't beat a large wire loop, but for its size does very well indeed. The nulls are very pronounced. Mechanically, the thing has survived 70 mph winds, snow, ice, etc., with no problems. I use it exclusively below 500 kHz.

73, Ray

Re: Wellbrook ALA1530
Posted by Jacques d'Avignon (monitor@igs.net) on December 20, 2004 at 17:26:41.
In Reply to: Wellbrook ALA1530 posted by Dave Martin on December 18, 2004 at 23:11:01.

I have used an ALA 1530 for many years now, and for over 2 years it was the only antenna used. For under 500kHz, and for small space, you cannot beat it.

BK moved to 184.80 KHz
Posted by Bruce Koehler (bkoehler@spacestar.net) on December 20, 2004 at 12:43:34.

Moved BK up 100Hz to 184.80KHz to avoid birdies and to a frequency where no other LowFERs are listed. Mode is CW, about 12WPM with a brief weather message. Reception reports are welcome!

I Was hearing BRO and LEK Sunday Dec 20.

73,
Bruce BK, W0BK

Results of LowFER expedition
Posted by Eric KD5UWL (Fwd) on December 25, 2004 at 12:55:21.

Subject: [LW] Results of LowFER expedition now online
Date: Dec 25, 2004 11:55 AM

Hi, all,

First let me say THANKS to all for listening!

I've posted the results of my trip here:
http://www.nutstreet.net/radio/lowferDXpedition/2004/

I'll do it again next year.

73
Eric

New North American NDB List online
Posted by William Hepburn [ vem3ont22@cogeco.ca ] on December 27, 2004 at 17:41:38.

I've now added my North American NDB List to the DX Info Centre. It will be kept as up-to-date as possible. The URL is http://home.cogeco.ca/ ~dxinfo/ndb.htm . Listings for other continents may be added in the future.

Urban DXr's?
Posted by Al (ndbdxr@yahoo.com) on December 27, 2004 at 20:40:22.

Hi Guys,

I was just wondering: Are there any other members who DX NDB's from an urban QTH? Not long ago, I put up a 130' longwire at a friend's house in the suburbs and I didn't log nearly as many beacons as I thought I would. It seemed that reception was only slightly improved over my usual magnetic transfer GMDSS ant. in my urban location (Bronx, NY).

Thanks,

Al

Re: Urban DXr's
Posted by Jacques d'Avignon (monitor@igs.net) on December 28, 2004 at 17:14:38.
In Reply to: Urban DXr's? posted by Al on December 27, 2004 at 20:40:22.

Hi:

I have totally given up trying to do any sort of NDB dxing in an urban surrounding. Over the past 4 years, since my move to Ottawa the noise level has increased 10 times. So I wait for the Miscou DXpedition that I organise every fall and get my fill of NDBs intercepts, that hopefully will keep me satisfied for the full year.

Happy New Year to all.

Jacques

LF-HF Crossband Schedule for Wednesday Night - VE7SL
Posted by Steve McDonald (jsm@gulfislands.com) on December 28, 2004 at 17:47:14.

Wednesday night on the following schedule:
0400Z (Dec 30) - 0700Z

CQ on the hour and half hour on 137.5735kHz

QRSS20 with dash/dot ratio of 2:1 

Listening for replies on 3.555MHz CW and 7.055MHz CW at the end of each CQ.

See more information on crossband procedures and valid QSO requirements on:

http://www.imagenisp.com/jsm/Crossband.html

I hope to see you.

Steve / VE7SL / Mayne Island, BC CN88iu

LowFER "HS" is solid copy at "NWNJ"
Posted by John Bogath on December 28, 2004 at 19:19:38.

Tonight (Tuesday) I have had solid copy on LowFER "HS" since 1712 EST. Bradley's signal is stronger now than I can ever recall; about a 569. I had the speaker hooked up on the radio and could still copy him when I walked two rooms away. I was also able to copy him using my 32" portable loop. The distance is 83 miles over a very rough path. Foreign-BC stations are all over the band tonight, also. I hope the rest of you are taking advantage of the good conditions here in the northeast-USA.

LowFER SKN QSOs
Posted by Lyle Koehler (lyle@mlecmn.net) on December 31, 2004 at 22:20:07.

LowFERs RM, BK and LEK got on the air this evening for the traditional New Year's Eve straight key night CW contacts. Bruce (BK) was using his transmitting vertical for receiving and was picking up quite a bit of power line noise, but was able to copy RM and LEK well enough to carry on a conversation. RM and LEK were getting solid copy on the other stations. RM is approximately 70 miles from both BK and LEK; the distance between BK and LEK is about 95 miles.

RM and LEK had set up a schedule via HF earlier in the day, but BK was not aware of it until he copied a computer-generated CW "bulletin" on LEK a few minutes before the sked time.

By the way, I found that my old DOS beacon message generator program will run under Windows XP Pro, although the CW speed came out about four times faster than the numbers I entered. It was something of a surprise to see that it worked at all...

Even though no DX records are shattered, it's always fun to have these straight key night contacts on LF!

www.lwca.org