AmateurRadio.com

These listening events serve several purposes. They:

• determine, worldwide, which beacons are actually in service and on-the-air so the online database can be kept up-to-date

• determine, worldwide, which beacons are out-of-service or have gone silent since the last CLE covering this range

• will indicate the state of propagation conditions at the various participant locations

• will give you an indication of how well your LF/MF receiving system is working

• give participants a fun yet challenging activity to keep their listening skills honed

Final details can be found at the NDB List website, and worldwide results, for every participant, will be posted there a few days after the event. If you are a member of the ndblist Group, results will also be e-mailed and posted there.

The very active Yahoo ndblist Group is a great place to learn more about the 'Art of NDB DXing' or to meet other listeners in your region. There is a lot of good information available there and new members are always very welcome.

If you are contemplating getting started on 630m, listening for NDBs  is an excellent way to test out your receive capabilities as there are several NDBs located near this part of the spectrum.

You need not be an ndblist member to participate in the CLEs and all reports, no matter how small, are of much value to the organizers. 'First-time' logs are always VERY welcome!

Reports may be sent to the ndblist or e-mailed to either myself or CLE co- ordinator, Brian Keyte (G3SIA), whose address appears above.

Please...do give the CLE a try....then let us know what NDB's can be heard from your location! Your report can then be added to the worldwide database to help keep it up-to-date.

courtesy: http://www.banggood.com/

A recent posting to the GQRP Yahoo Group brought my attention to another inexpensive offering from China. This time it's Bangood's complete "Pixie" type 40m QRP transceiver for the incredible sum of $4.16 (U.S.)! The price includes all components, a nicely silk-screened PCB and free shipping. One really wonders how it is possible to make any profit with such an offering but it obviously is. However, all may not be what it seems. One purchaser, IK1ZYW (Paolo) who built the kit, described his findings in a recent blog posting of his building experience.

In spite of the problems noted above (with some now corrected), the kit still seems a bargain, if one takes the necessary care with construction.

Playing with QRP can often provide ham radio's best "fun for the money" as DX- capable transmitters can often be built for just a few dollars. I vividly recall the fun I had one winter while pursuing the first-ever Tuna Tin W.A.S. endeavour on 7040kHz.



I made many new friends on 7040 that winter and every weekend many of them would listen-in or call to see how my progress was going. The highlight of the adventure was late one Saturday night when I had three New England stations all answer the same CQ ... what amazing fun for a handful of parts at less than $10 ... not including the cost of a can of Tuna!


The little Pixie kit offered above has a power level fully capable of W.A.S. on 40m and with the decrease in solar conditions, 40m will just keep improving. If you purchase and build one of these kits, please let us know how your experience went. The 'interesting' construction notes may be found here.

Lasse, SM5GLC, operates an online remote Perseus and made the following comments:

Over the past few weeks/months I have see some "power-users" on my Perseus server... and my plan was to dissect the server log to investigate the usage percentage of my server... and found that already in May the log is 240 kb and growing fast. It seems impossible to analzye by hand.

Now I do notice one user, not too far away (only some 200 miles or so), seems to spend 2-3 hours per day using my server. Mostly just use all allotted time and then get back on asap. I know my antenna is nothing to write home about and the performance is mediocre if any... so this makes me wonder. What on earth do this user do with all the time??

Do others see similar behaviour??

By browsing the log it seems most, user time,70-80 per cent, are from Russia. Most others stay only for a very short period of time, up to a few minutes.

Has anyone tried to hack a script that would automatize the log analysis?? 
A few Q's that I do have are:
Is the server abused by some?
What is the optimal allowed time? and then the drop-out time?
What usage load would be best to shoot for??

Don, VE6JY, a long-time remote owner added:




Both operators raise some interesting questions!

If you have used a remote SDR or do so with some regularity, how did you find the experience? What types of things did you listen or look for? How much time would you typically spend on the site? What do you think the limits on time should be?

I have used a remote once or twice in the past, to listen for my Tri-Tet-Ten's chirpy, low power signal, and found it very useful but I've never used one for general listening.

What are your experiences?

courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/

It appears that the FCC's plan to close two thirds of their field offices has both broadcasters and other stakeholders pretty worried. As reported by both Radio World and Inside Radio, the FCC would reduce the number of field agents from 63 to 33 and the number of directors from 21 to five, as well as cutting support staff. The number of field offices would shrink from 24 to eight. The only field (RF spectrum enforcement) offices remaining operational would be those in New York City, Maryland, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Complainants range from broadcasters and the cellular wireless industry to agencies relying heavily on communications such as police and fire agencies. Many of them are worried that interference cases will fall by the wayside with the FCC not able to keep up with mitigation issues.

One seemingly odd complaint of the broadcast industry was the effects that the closures would have on the agency's ability to track down pirate broadcasters! Surely that is not a huge issue in the grand scheme of things? Responding to this odd complaint, the new FCC enforcement chief, Travis Leblanc, issued a strange policy statement saying that he would take a "new" approach when it came to pirates by doing what is needed to keep pirates from even getting on-the-air in the first place! No details of this puzzling solution were forthcoming.

It would seem to me that most public broadcasters would be delighted at the thought of having less FCC oversight. At a time when more and more broadcasters appear to be "forgetting" to switch to nighttime power levels (lower) or to change antenna patterns, surely the FCC downsizing will lead to even more rogue behaviour.

Amateurs relying on any help in mitigating local interference issues, power line noise and complaints from neighbours will also be swept-away in the downsizing.

Unless more funding from Congress is forthcoming, it appears that the closures may really happen. Radio World reports that some of the affected industries are discussing potentially lobbying Congress to keep the field offices open but it appears the focus is on getting the agency to do things more efficiently and opponents argue that the FCC was able to run their offices under last year's budget.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out but if the closures go ahead, it won't be good for any of us ... unless of course, you're a pirate.

Courtesy: http://swldx.us/blog/

This coming weekend offers amateurs the opportunity to work many of the Armed Forces stations via the crossband mode. The 65th Armed Forces Day Crossband Communications Test will see stations such as NMC (Alameda, CA), NOJ (Kodiak, AK), NRV (Guam), NMN (Portsmouth, VA), WAR (Pentagon, Washington, DC), along with seventeen others, joining the 24 hour event. Activity will begin as early as May 09 at 0700Z from NRV in Guam, while others will join the fray beginning at 1200Z.

Each station has a slightly different operating schedule and full details of operating times and crossband frequencies can be downloaded from here.

In addition to the usual SSB / CW modes, this year will see several digital modes such as MT63, AMTOR FEC, as well as two new modes ... MIL-STD and ALE.

The needed MIL-STD (Serial PSK) software can be downloaded for free from MS-DMT software.

The activity gives hams and SWL's the chance to exercise their technical and operating skills. All stations will provide a special QSL for contacts made or for reports of reception.

Join the fun and gather some unique wallpaper at the same time ... not many hams have a QSL from 'WAR' on the wall!

As indicated in an earlier blog, a planned scan of the 49m band was made a few nights ago ... one at 0400Z (10PM local) and another at 1200Z (5AM local). Both had a decidedly different flavor. Frankly I was surprised at the number of broadcasters and especially the number from Asia, China mainly, heard in the morning scan. One information source I found indicates that most of the strong shortwave signals from China are more designed for jamming than for program content.

My initial impression was that many of the more interesting low power targets from Central / South America and Africa may be a thing of the past but I may be wrong. The 'news' page, of the World Wide DX Club, seems to indicate that there are still lots of juicy targets out there if you are willing to put in the time to look for them, as many seem interested in doing. There also seems to be a larger variety of DX targets available in the higher bands such as 25m and 31m.

For the most part, these broadcasters don't fool around with QRP, and their signals are pretty dominant. Conditions of late have not favored Europe or Africa so there may be more activity from these regions than I think.

The following stations were logged with the Perseus SDR along and the 10'x20' loop / Wellbrook preamp, looping E-W, at 0400Z:

5810 EWTN (inSpan) Vandiver, Alabama 500kw
5830 WTWW (rel) Lebanon, TN 100kw
5850 Sun Power Radio (RMI) Okeechobee, FL 100kw
5890 WWCR (rel) Nashville, TN 100kw
5910 NHK Radio Japan Issoudun, France 100kw
5920 WHRI (rel) s/off Cypress Creek, SC 250kw
5920 Radio Romania Galbeni 300kw
5935 WWCR (rel) Nashville, TN 100kw
5970 Radio Italia (in Portuguese) Belo Horizonte, Brazil 10kw
5980 Channel Africa s/off Meyerton, SA 250kw
5985 NHK World Radio Japan (in Span) Okeechobee, FL 100kw
6000 Radio Habana Cuba Titan Quivican 250kw
6020 Radio Gaucha s/off Porto Alegre, Brazil 10kw
6030 Radio Marti Greenville, NC 250kw
6040 Radio RB2 (in Portuguese) Curibata, PR 10kw
6050 unid  / weak
6060 Radio Habana Cuba La Habana 100kw
6070 CFRX Toronto, ON 1kw
6090 Caribbean Beacon (rel) Anguilla 100kw
6125 Deutsche Welle s/off Manama, Bahrain 250kw
6160 CKZU Vancouver, BC 500w
6165 Radio Habana Cuba La Habana 100kw
6175 Voice of Vietnam Cypress Creek, SC 250kw
6180 Radio Nacional Brazilia Brasilia 250kw
6185 XEPPM Radio Educacion Mexico City 1kw

These stations were logged at 1200Z, using the same system:

5830 WTWW Tennessee 250kw
5875 BBC Nakhon Sawan (Thailand) 250kw
5915 China Radio Int'l Hohhot 100kw
5925 Voice of Vietnam 2 Hanoi 50kw
5935 PBS Xizang Lhasa-Baiding 100kw //6110
5955 China Radio Int'l Beijing 150kw
5970 PBS Gannan Hezuo 15kw
5975 CNR 8 Beijing 100kw
5985 Myanmar Radio Yangon 25kw
5990 unid China Radio Int'l same interval sig as 5915
5995 Taiwan Xing Xing Kuanyin sign-on 10kw
6000 CNR 1 Beijing 100kw
6003 VOH Korea (S) 100kw
6015 KBS Hanminjok Bangsung 1 Hwaseong (S. Korea) 100kw
6020 weak / poss Radio Victoria Lima with time pips 3kw
6030 CNR 1 Beijing 100kw
6040 weak w/eastern music/ poss Air Jeypore India 50kw
6050 weak / poss RTM Malaysia 10kw
6055 weak w/continuous music / unid
6060 Radio Argentina Exterior General Pacheco 100kw
6065 CNR 2 Beijing 150kw
6070 Voice of Korea / in Japanese Kanggye 10kw
6080 PBS Hulun Buir Hailar (Mongolia) 10kw
6090 NHK World Radio Japan Ibaragi-Koga-Yamata 300kw
6095 KBS World Radio Kimjae (S.Korea) 250kw
6100 Radio Serbia Bijeljina 250kw
6105 Radio Taiwan Int'l Kouhu 100kw
6110 Voice of America / chinese Udon Thani (Thailand) 250kw
6110 PBS Xizang Lhasa-Baiding 100kw //5935
6115 Voice of Strait Fuzhou (PRC) 50kw
6125 CNR 1 Beijing 100kw
6155 CNR 2 Beijing 150kw
6160 CKZU Vancouver 500w / relay CBU AM
6165 Voice of Vietnam 4 Hanoi 50kw
6175 CNR 1 Beijing 100kw
6180 CNR unid but time pips match other CNRs
6180 Radio Taiwan Woofferton 250kw
6195 BBC Kranji (Singapore) 125kw
6200 Voice of Jinling Manjing (Singapore) 100kw
6280.14 Unid with music / poss SOH Xi Wang Zhi Sheng Tanshui (Taiwan) 100 watts
6365 Hand sent keyer CW with callups 7CJ 7CB 7FB QTC into nr/ltr groups
6389 similar to above but nr/ltr groups
6400 Pyongyang Kanggye (N. Korea) 50kw
6501 USCG NMO Honolulu with wx bdcst
6518 Voice of the People Kyonggi-do-Koyang (S. Korea) 50kw
6518 N. Korean jammer Kujang 250kw
6600 Voice of the People Kyonggi-do-Koyang (S. Korea) 50kw
6600 N. Korean jammer Kujang 250kw
6679 Honolulu Radio w/ aviation Volmet
6754 Trenton Volmet wx bdcst

The number of broadcasters using remote sites is also surprising. It seems that the relaying of program content for others is big business and for many countries, much cheaper than running their own 250kw stations.

Some links that I have found very useful for identifying SW BC stations:

http://www.geocities.jp/binewsjp/ic/bia15.txt

http://www.short-wave.info/

http://www.shortwaveschedule.com/

Continuing with the important sections of NPRM (FCC 15-50) affecting the future of LF/MF assignments in the U.S.A. ...








174.
We also seek comment on the applicability of IEEE 1613-2009 – IEEE Standard Environmental and Testing Requirements for Communications Networking Devices Installed in Electric Power Substations ... ARRL claims that PLC systems complying with IEEE-1613 “would virtually guarantee that there would be no interaction between amateur stations and PLC systems,” and that compliance with the standard has been required by the Commission’s since 2002.  As background, the Commission’s rules require that PLC systems conform to engineering standards promulgated by the Commission and adhere to industry approved standards designed to enhance the use of PLC systems. Is compliance with this IEEE standard required by the Commission’s rules (i.e. is this an industry approved standard designed to enhance the use of PLC systems)? Would compliance of PLC systems with this standard facilitate the sharing of these bands between amateur stations and PLC systems? Are there PLC systems deployed that do not comply with this standard?
Would compliance with this standard obviate the need for amateur stations to maintain a specific separation distance from transmission lines?

175.
We recognize that the separation distance required for PLC systems and amateur stations to coexist will depend on the power at which the amateur stations are permitted to transmit. We propose that amateur stations in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band be limited to a maximum EIRP of 1 W, as is required by footnote RR 5.67A, and which we adopted in the WRC-07 R&O. Is this EIRP limit appropriate for facilitating sharing between PLC systems and amateur stations? For the 472-479 kHz band, we propose to adopt transmitted power limits consistent with RR 5.80A. Amateur stations will be limited to an EIRP of 1 W in the portion of Alaska within 800 km of the Russian Federation and will be permitted to transmit at up to 5 W EIRP elsewhere. Is this EIRP limit appropriate for PLC systems and amateur stations to share this band? Should amateur stations be required to reduce their EIRP below 5 W when close to transmission lines and at what distances? We seek comment on these proposals.

176.
We also seek comment on the practical application of a separation distance requirement, and, specifically, what resources and information amateur radio operators will need to comply with our rules. Amateur licensees will have to determine the location of transmission lines in their vicinity to determine if they are permitted to operate stations using these frequency bands. The amateur licensees will need to differentiate transmission lines from the electric distribution lines that connect distribution substations to customer or house wiring. High voltage transmission lines are typically attached to large steel towers that are easy to identity. However, lower voltage transmission lines are typically attached to wooden poles. Although the wooden poles used for transmission lines are usually taller than the wooden poles used for distribution lines, we recognize that distinguishing the two types may not always be straightforward. We seek comment on whether amateur licensees will be able to identify the transmission lines in their locality. If amateur licensees are not able to reliably identify transmission lines, should we require amateurs or ARRL to affirmatively verify the locations of transmission lines with utilities or UTC before an amateur station begins transmitting?

178.
Lastly, we seek comment on additional service and operational rules that would be appropriate for amateur operations in these bands. According to ARRL, the tallest antenna that should reasonably be considered for an amateur station is 200 feet, because antennas with greater heights would
be required to obtain prior FAA approval and have to comply with FAA painting and lighting requirements. We note that adopting a maximum antenna height for amateur stations in these bands will aid in sharing of the spectrum with PLC systems by limiting the number of transmission lines that would potentially be in direct line-of-sight of amateur station antennas. We seek comment on what maximum antenna height, if any, we should adopt for amateur stations in these bands. 

179.
We also invite comment on whether to adopt transmitter power limits for amateur stations, in addition to the EIRP limits we are proposing. If so, we seek comment on what the power limits should be. We observe that, in the 2002 Amateur Radio NPRM, the Commission proposed to limit the maximum transmitter power in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band to 100 W PEP because of the possible difficulty of measuring the EIRP of an amateur station in this frequency range. Also, in 1998, ARRL submitted data for the 135.7-137.8 kHz band showing that relatively short antennas can only produce ranges of EIRP that are well below the ITU’s 1 W EIRP limit (i.e., 10-40 mW for a 100 foot antenna and 1-4 mW for a 50 foot antenna) with a transmitter power output of 200 W PEP. The Commission did not consider either power limit at that time, because, as noted above, it decided not to adopt an allocation for amateur operations in this band. Given that we have adopted such an allocation in the WRC-07 R&O above, do either the 2002 Amateur Radio NPRM or ARRL’s 1998 study provide a basis for determining transmitter power limits now? Should these transmitter power limits vary depending on antenna height – e.g. we could allow a 200 W PEP limit for antenna heights not exceeding 30.5 meters while permitting only 100 W PEP for taller antennas. Should the transmitter power limits differ between the 135.7-137.8 kHz band and the 472-479 kHz bands?

180.
In response to the WRC-07 NPRM, commenters addressed a number of steps that could facilitate amateur use of the 135.7-137.8 kHz band. Amateur operator John H. Davis (Davis) proposed that no amateur station should be automatically controlled to ensure that the amateur operator is able to quickly terminate transmissions if necessary. Davis also suggested that it may be appropriate to also prohibit software-driven modes that determine their own operating frequency without human intervention.
Should we adopt Davis’s suggestions? ARRL’s states that there is no rationale for limiting the occupied bandwidth in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band to less than the full 2.1 kilohertz, and that a stricter limit would not be conducive to experimentation with narrowband data emission modes in the future. Should we adopt any bandwidth limitation for either of the frequency bands? In the WRC-07 NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether it should limit operating privileges in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band, e.g., to Amateur Extra Class licensees. None of the commenters believe that such a restriction would better facilitate Amateur/PLC sharing of the band. In particular, we note that ARRL states that it would be consistent with Commission policy to make this frequency band available to Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General Class licensees. Should we limit operating privileges for these bands in accordance with ARRL’s statement? Should we propose to authorize CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), and data emissions throughout the 630 and 2200 meter bands as we did for our 2200 meter band proposal in 2002? We also seek comment on amending Section 97.3 by adding definitions for the terms effective radiated power, isotropically radiated power, and LF.

181.
Other Allocated Uses. Other radio services use the 135.7-137.8 kHz band. In the U.S. Table, the 130-160 kHz band is allocated to the fixed service (FS) and maritime mobile service (MMS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use ... The 126.7-141.7 kHz band is also used to track tagged salmon in the Pacific watershed. We seek comment on whether we need
to adopt exclusion zones or use other methods to protect these Federal uses of the band. Should we delete the unused non-Federal allocations from this band? To be consistent with the International Table, we also propose to require that amateur fixed stations operating in the 2200 meter band not cause harmful interference to stations in the FS and MMS that are authorized by other nations and require that these amateur stations take any and all corrective action, if harmful interference is reported to us. We seek comment on these proposals.

It would appear that the nature of enquiry is extensive but it is the next step needed before the LF / MF bands will become a reality in the U.S.

Following publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register (see daily updates here to see when it appears), stakeholders will have 60 days to make comments. Comments can be written or posted via their online comment page once it is opened. A thirty-day reply-to-comments period then ensues.

One source that I have read indicates that there is usually about 12-18 months before NPRM publication and rule enactment, should there be no major stumbling blocks. Whenever the final decision to implement comes will depend on how the enquiry proceeds.

I would urge all those interested in seeing these band become a reality to file comments when the opportunity becomes available, following the Federal Register posting. Comments could include your opinions on power levels, methods of stating / measuring power levels, restrictions on operating near power transmission lines, modes allowed, etc. It is particularly important for U.S. experimental stations to file a detailed report on their operations, including accurate descriptions of antenna systems and transmitter details. As well, I would urge Canadian amateurs that have had experience operating on either of these two bands, to file comments regarding your experiences, with particular emphasis on the lack of interference caused to PLC signals and the lack of interference caused by PLC signals to your own operation. Rest assured that U.S. power authorities will be putting their resources ($$) into one last lobby for as many restrictions as possible and it is not in our interest for the NPRM comments to be one-sided in their favor.

Lets all hope for a swift outcome to something that has been taking far too long.