[Lf] Fast CW and big antennas

[Andre' Kesteloot]

The message below was posted by Steve Olney VK2ZTO on the RSGB reflector after a
few somewhat acrimonious exchanges about "the bigger the antenna the better",
and "those who don't have a good installation don't stand a chance", etc. (my
summarizing of the exchange).
Andre' N4ICK
*********************************************

Steve Olney wrote:

> G'day All,
>
> Once again, thanks to all that have replied directly.   I'm sorry but I
> can't reply to you all directly because of time restrictions.
>
> I must admit to be a little stirred up as it has become apparent from some
> of the direct contacts to me that there are a significant number of
> potential operators out there who are intimidated by the disparaging remarks
> about modest installations to such an extent that they are discouraged from
> entering the LF area of operation.
>
> Be reassured that there is a silent majority out there that will encourage
> you no matter how small your installation is.    The LF bands are NOT DXCC
> bands or an arena for seeing who has the biggest this or that - it is, in
> most countries, allocated as an EXPERIMENTAL band.   That is why you can use
> modes on LF which are not allowed in some countries on the HF bands (so I am
> told).
>
> As for the assertion about relative costs for masts and transceivers.   I
> obviously am not in the same monetary class as those who would say that a
> tower costing over £2000 (over $5300 Aus) is an option.   I do have a modern
> transceiver which cost me nearly $3000 Aus but I saved for a long time (a
> long time and much talking and justification with the XYL) for this, but it
> gives me access to all bands to 70cm (including LF receive).
>
> Another contribution carries the implication that those who are keen to
> engage in DSP should remember that not everyone has a PC.    Well, over here
> a PC capable of running Spectrogram (and other things - logging, antenna
> analysis, etc) will cost you less than $500 - one tenth the cost of the
> suggested tower from the other contribution.
>
> So to those that are thinking about getting on the air on LF - DON'T be put
> off by the fear that your activity will viewed as not worth the bother.
> The reason we have been granted the privilege of using these LF frequencies
> is for experimentation (nowhere in the submissions for access to LF to the
> relevant regulatory bodies will you find the purpose as being for DXCC,
> biggest antennas or CW skills - but you will find the words experimentation
> and investigation) and so if you want to experiment with a 6m pole and are
> thrilled to make it over a 30km path - go do it!!   If you do something
> different from the accepted 'norm' then it could be argued that you have
> made more of a contribution above what can be just copied from commercial
> installations.  If we just strive to mimic commercial installations what is
> the point?    How can we argue with our regulatory authorities that we are
> worthy of access to LF if they see that we are just re-inventing the wheel?
>
> Finally, to those of you that emailed me with indications of being
> discouraged because of the modesty of their installations,  I can re-assure
> you that there IS a silent majority out there whose LF capabilities range
> from the very modest to the top-most capability whose motivation is one of
> the pure thrill of the challenge (whether 10km or 2000km) and are competing
> with the physics, etc, not each other.
>
> So in summary, there are plenty of us who just want to have a free exchange
> of ideas while just a few want to mass debate :-)
>
> Regards Steve Olney
> VK2ZTO
> (P.S. I was going to add more letters here, eg., two Degrees and one
> Diploma, but I didn't want to appear to be a wanker, and they are totally
> irrelevant to Amateur activities anyway :-)