Posts Tagged ‘LF’
LF and MF Now Very Close For U.S. Amateurs!
March 31st, 2017 | 
Author: 
For U.S. amateurs anxiously awaiting implementation of the new 630m and 2200m bands, the wait seems to be almost over!
Good news came down late yesterday in the form of the FCC's "Report and Order" (ET Docket No. 15-99) which lays out the proposed rules and regulations that, barring any further changes, will likely become standard operating procedures once these two bands become finalized.
Highlights of the FCC's document are as follows:
1. Recognition that both Utilities (UTC) and amateurs can co-exist within these parts of the spectrum:
... co existence between PLC systems and amateur radio operations in these bands is possible, and the service rules we adopt in this Order will foster this co existence.
2. Amateurs operating within these bands must be no closer than 1 km from transmission lines that are actively carrying PLC (control) signals:
As proposed, we will permit amateur stations to operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands when separated by a specified distance from electric power transmission lines with PLC systems that use the same bands. To support the operations of both the amateur service and PLC systems in these bands, we adopt a minimum horizontal separation distance of one kilometer between the transmission line and the amateur station when operating in these bands.
We find that a one kilometer separation distance reasonably ensures that PLC systems and amateur radio stations are unlikely to experience interference. In addition, establishing a zone where amateur use is not authorized will simplify and streamline the process for determining whether an amateur station can transmit in these bands when in proximity to transmission lines upon which PLC systems operate.
3. Amateurs must "make notification" to local UTC authorities before commencing operation on either of these two bands:
We will require amateur operators to notify UTC of the location of their proposed station prior to commencing operations, to confirm that the station is not located within the one kilometer separation distance.
The notification requirement will entail notifying UTC of the operator’s call sign and coordinates of the proposed station’s location for confirmation that the location is outside the one kilometer separation distance, or the relevant PLC system is not transmitting on the requested bands. UTC, which maintains a database of PLC systems must respond to the notification within 30 days if it objects. If UTC raises no objection, amateur radio operators may commence operations on the band identified in their notification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a public notice providing the details for filing notifications with UTC.
A simple notification to UTC with a 30-day waiting period does not appear to be burdensome. Amateur operations can commence as soon as that period expires. ARRL claims that UTC should provide access to the PLC database to them or directly to amateurs to assist them in determining whether their notified operations are within the one-kilometer separation distance from transmission lines with PLC systems operating on these bands. ARRL fails to make a persuasive case why it would be a better organization to make those determinations rather than UTC. Further, since UTC has control of the PLC database which can be updated, we find no reason to mandate its release to another party especially considering the sensitive nature of information it contains.
4. Power limits will be expressed in EIRP as well as maximum PEP:
Amateur stations may operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band with a maximum radiated power of one watt EIRP ... that amateur stations operating in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band should be subject only to the general Part 97 limit of 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP).
We also adopt the power limits proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM for amateur stations operating in the 472-479 kHz band. For such stations, the maximum radiated power will be five watts EIRP, except for stations located in the portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation, where the EIRP will be limited to one watt. We also limit the transmitter power for amateur radio operations in the 472 479 kHz band to 500 watts PEP; provided, however, that the resulting radiated power does not exceed five watts EIRP. In other words, it may be necessary to reduce transmitter power below 500 watts PEP to avoid exceeding the five watts EIRP limit.
5. Antenna height will be limited:
... we will require that the antennas used to transmit in these bands not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level (AGL), as ARRL proposed.
6. Regarding transmission modes, no bandwidths have been specified in order to encourage experimentation:
Consistent with our proposal in the WRC-12 NPRM, and with the existing rules in Section 97.305 for the frequency bands below 30 MHz, we authorize amateur stations to transmit the following emission types throughout the new amateur bands: CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), data, phone, and image emissions. These emission types provide amateur operators with maximum flexibility, and we find that additional restrictions would needlessly hinder experimentation.
7. Experimental stations appear to 'still be in business' but are encouraged to transition to the 'amateur' service:
Finally, we decline to permit previously licensed experimental stations – some of which have been authorized with significantly more radiated power than the adopted EIRP limits for these new amateur service bands – to communicate with amateur stations operating in these bands. Amateur operations in these bands currently authorized under experimental licenses should transition their operations in accordance with the adopted rules and not circumvent such rules by use of experimental licenses.
My understanding of the R&O document is that participating parties may still file a 'Petition For Reconsideration' notification within 30 days of the R&O's publication in the Federal Register. Once these (if any) are dealt with, there are no other roadblocks preventing immediate implementation.
The document contains additional details not discussed here and makes fascinating reading for amateurs that might be looking forward to the new allocations.
This is the news that many U.S. amateurs have been waiting many years to hear! It is also good news for Canadian's operating on these bands to know that they may soon see a large increase in activity south of the border. Let's hope things continue to transpire favorably and that we will finally see the new bands become a reality.
Get those soldering irons out guys and gals!
LF and MF Now Very Close For U.S. Amateurs!
For U.S. amateurs anxiously awaiting implementation of the new 630m and 2200m bands, the wait seems to be almost over!
Good news came down late yesterday in the form of the FCC's "Report and Order" (ET Docket No. 15-99) which lays out the proposed rules and regulations that, barring any further changes, will likely become standard operating procedures once these two bands become finalized.
Highlights of the FCC's document are as follows:
1. Recognition that both Utilities (UTC) and amateurs can co-exist within these parts of the spectrum:
... co existence between PLC systems and amateur radio operations in these bands is possible, and the service rules we adopt in this Order will foster this co existence.
2. Amateurs operating within these bands must be no closer than 1 km from transmission lines that are actively carrying PLC (control) signals:
As proposed, we will permit amateur stations to operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands when separated by a specified distance from electric power transmission lines with PLC systems that use the same bands. To support the operations of both the amateur service and PLC systems in these bands, we adopt a minimum horizontal separation distance of one kilometer between the transmission line and the amateur station when operating in these bands.
We find that a one kilometer separation distance reasonably ensures that PLC systems and amateur radio stations are unlikely to experience interference. In addition, establishing a zone where amateur use is not authorized will simplify and streamline the process for determining whether an amateur station can transmit in these bands when in proximity to transmission lines upon which PLC systems operate.
3. Amateurs must "make notification" to local UTC authorities before commencing operation on either of these two bands:
We will require amateur operators to notify UTC of the location of their proposed station prior to commencing operations, to confirm that the station is not located within the one kilometer separation distance.
The notification requirement will entail notifying UTC of the operator’s call sign and coordinates of the proposed station’s location for confirmation that the location is outside the one kilometer separation distance, or the relevant PLC system is not transmitting on the requested bands. UTC, which maintains a database of PLC systems must respond to the notification within 30 days if it objects. If UTC raises no objection, amateur radio operators may commence operations on the band identified in their notification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a public notice providing the details for filing notifications with UTC.
A simple notification to UTC with a 30-day waiting period does not appear to be burdensome. Amateur operations can commence as soon as that period expires. ARRL claims that UTC should provide access to the PLC database to them or directly to amateurs to assist them in determining whether their notified operations are within the one-kilometer separation distance from transmission lines with PLC systems operating on these bands. ARRL fails to make a persuasive case why it would be a better organization to make those determinations rather than UTC. Further, since UTC has control of the PLC database which can be updated, we find no reason to mandate its release to another party especially considering the sensitive nature of information it contains.
4. Power limits will be expressed in EIRP as well as maximum PEP:
Amateur stations may operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band with a maximum radiated power of one watt EIRP ... that amateur stations operating in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band should be subject only to the general Part 97 limit of 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP).
We also adopt the power limits proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM for amateur stations operating in the 472-479 kHz band. For such stations, the maximum radiated power will be five watts EIRP, except for stations located in the portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation, where the EIRP will be limited to one watt. We also limit the transmitter power for amateur radio operations in the 472 479 kHz band to 500 watts PEP; provided, however, that the resulting radiated power does not exceed five watts EIRP. In other words, it may be necessary to reduce transmitter power below 500 watts PEP to avoid exceeding the five watts EIRP limit.
5. Antenna height will be limited:
... we will require that the antennas used to transmit in these bands not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level (AGL), as ARRL proposed.
6. Regarding transmission modes, no bandwidths have been specified in order to encourage experimentation:
Consistent with our proposal in the WRC-12 NPRM, and with the existing rules in Section 97.305 for the frequency bands below 30 MHz, we authorize amateur stations to transmit the following emission types throughout the new amateur bands: CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), data, phone, and image emissions. These emission types provide amateur operators with maximum flexibility, and we find that additional restrictions would needlessly hinder experimentation.
7. Experimental stations appear to 'still be in business' but are encouraged to transition to the 'amateur' service:
Finally, we decline to permit previously licensed experimental stations – some of which have been authorized with significantly more radiated power than the adopted EIRP limits for these new amateur service bands – to communicate with amateur stations operating in these bands. Amateur operations in these bands currently authorized under experimental licenses should transition their operations in accordance with the adopted rules and not circumvent such rules by use of experimental licenses.
My understanding of the R&O document is that participating parties may still file a 'Petition For Reconsideration' notification within 30 days of the R&O's publication in the Federal Register. Once these (if any) are dealt with, there are no other roadblocks preventing immediate implementation.
The document contains additional details not discussed here and makes fascinating reading for amateurs that might be looking forward to the new allocations.
This is the news that many U.S. amateurs have been waiting many years to hear! It is also good news for Canadian's operating on these bands to know that they may soon see a large increase in activity south of the border. Let's hope things continue to transpire favorably and that we will finally see the new bands become a reality.
Get those soldering irons out guys and gals!
The Amazing BOG
 |
| courtesy: http://www.wd0m.com/antennas1.html |
A recent inquiry about 'BOG' antennas on the topband reflector reminded me of my own experiences with this simple yet very effective antenna. A 'BOG' or 'Beverage On Ground' seems to come in many varieties and is usually, out of necessity, shorter than a 'real' beverage.
In many instances, BOGs are as simple as running a wire out on the ground as long and as straight as practical. Not always, but usually, the BOG is fed by a small homemade balun to isolate and match the impedance to a 50 ohm feedline. Most real Beverages are terminated at the far end with a resistor to ground, while for BOG builders, some use it and some don't.
My own experience with a BOG, or as close as I could come to one, was an extension of my 160m half-sloper. The topband half-sloper was quite normal, being about 132' long and fed at the top of its supporting metal tower with 50 ohm coax ... the hot-side of the coax going to the wire and the shield going to the metal tower.
One afternoon I wondered how the antenna would work lower in frequency, in the NDB band below the broadcast band, if I were to extend the sloping 132' element further. I added another length of wire to the lower end and proceeded to run the wire along the ground on the bankside above the beach. I was able to run out another 500' approximately, in a straight line to the east, before running out of beach. I left the far end unterminated and waited for darkness to to have a listen.
The first thing I noticed when tuning the NDB band was how quiet it sounded. There seemed to be almost no noise, man-made or nature-made. Disconnecting the antenna showed a small drop in what little noise there was, indicating that sensitivity levels were still being determined by skynoise ... a good thing.
What amazed me however, was that signals just popped-up everywhere and although not as strong as on my normal NDB antenna (a loop at the time), they were much better copy since there was virtually no noise. The BOG produced a significant improvement in my SNR on all signals. It had been several months since I had logged any new beacons on the NDB band but over the next three weeks I was able to put 65 new catches in the log ... all previously unheard! Switching between the loop and the BOG almost always produced no copy at all on the new signals, compared to an easily copied one on the BOG.
My experience was very similar to that shown in these videos by VO1HP ... with solid signals well out of the low noise background and no sign of atmospheric noise to mask them.
It is clearly evident that the BOG delivers a much better SNR than the comparison loop and is the reason so many topbanders use a separate antenna for receiving. The next video compares the BOG with a 160m 'Inverted-L', a very popular antenna on topband.
BOGs need not be really long and good results can be had with just 200' of wire. Many BOG users employ a simple preamp to boost the low level of signal but often the switchable 'preamp' built into a receiver or transceiver will be enough to overcome the low gain of shorter wires.
I've often thought that if I had a lot of acreage, the ideal receiving system for MF and LF work would be a centrally located radio shack with long Beverage wires fed-out in various directions ... like the spokes of a wheel. Having the ability to directionally switch antennas would produce 'beam-like' capabilities on LF.
There is a ton of web information available on the BOG and the Beverage should you want to give this simple antenna a try and have a narrow strip of space where one might be laid out without causing a problem.
A very comprehensive source of BOG and Beverage information can be found on WØBTU's Beverage Receiving Antennas page here.
A nice compilation of Beverage / BOG exchanges from the Topband Reflector may be found on N1EU's Beverage Antenna Tips page here.
In addition, N1EU has a useful page of discussion about transformers used in these antennas.
PA5MW offers a colorful description of his own BOG experience here.
Bruce, K1FZ has a nice BOG 'hint's' page here and also passed this advise to the original BOG inquiry:
A BOG can do a good job unterminated. If too long they self terminate. Depends upon the soil as to length.
The biggest mistake is making the BOG antenna too long. Try not to go
over 200 feet for 160 meters. Longer will work in some locations
soil like desert, sand, other non/ partial conducting types.
Its been a few years since my last experience with a BOG but I may run one out again for the DX season, now that most of my neighbours have left the island for the winter.
Nightly 75kHz WSPR Activity From Arizona – WH2XND
 |
| 2.5mH 136kHz loading coil at WH2XND |
For the past few weeks, Ron, NI7J in Phoenix, has been activating his experimental station, WH2XND, in the LF band ... on 75.550kHz (WSPR), where he is licenced to operate.
Last night I decided to put my nightly 630m WSPR beacon on hold and have a listen for Ron's signal using my 10' x 20' loop.
Ron's main experimental operating has been on 630m and 2200m WSPR mode but his recent activity on 75kHz has sparked a lot of interest among dedicated summertime listeners. WH2XND is licenced for 10W ERP on 75kHz, not a number that's easy to muster considering the poor antenna efficiency produced by typical amateur installations ... however, judging from Ron's coils, his installation looks far from 'typical'!
Ron's signal is being well heard, even up in Alaska, in spite of the noisy summer conditions and it will be interesting to see how well it propagates once we move into the fall and quieter winter nights.
The big loop seemed to do well with Ron's signal last night, resulting in 55 decodes starting at around 2300 local time and continuing to sunrise.
Timestamp Call SNR Grid
2016-07-12 12:28 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:20 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:16 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:12 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:08 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:04 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 12:00 WH2XND -29 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:40 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:36 WH2XND -20 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:32 WH2XND -18 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:28 WH2XND -18 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:24 WH2XND -19 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:20 WH2XND -19 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:16 WH2XND -20 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:12 WH2XND -20 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:08 WH2XND -19 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:04 WH2XND -19 DM33xt
2016-07-12 11:00 WH2XND -20 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:56 WH2XND -20 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:52 WH2XND -21 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:48 WH2XND -22 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:44 WH2XND -23 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:40 WH2XND -24 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:36 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:32 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:28 WH2XND -24 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:24 WH2XND -24 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:20 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:16 WH2XND -24 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:12 WH2XND -23 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:08 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:04 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 10:00 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:56 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:52 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:40 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:36 WH2XND -25 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:32 WH2XND -24 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:28 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:24 WH2XND -26 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:20 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:16 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:08 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 09:00 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 08:56 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 08:52 WH2XND -29 DM33xt
2016-07-12 08:44 WH2XND -29 DM33xt
2016-07-12 08:40 WH2XND -27 DM33xt
2016-07-12 08:36 WH2XND -28 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:44 WH2XND -32 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:32 WH2XND -31 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:28 WH2XND -31 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:24 WH2XND -30 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:20 WH2XND -30 DM33xt
2016-07-12 06:12 WH2XND -29 DM33xt
His signal peaked here (shown in blue above) about an hour before sunrise, with almost a dozen decodes in the -18 to -20 region ... not far from audible CW levels which will probably be seen in winter. It was interesting to note as well, that in several transmitting sequences, Ron's signal was stronger in Alaska than it was here and in Washington state ... just the opposite of what one might expect.
In the past, I have had good results on 75kHz with Dex (W4DEX), when listening for his QRSS CW signal, using my normal inverted -L with a 2.5mH RFC inserted in series with the antenna's normal loading coil.
 |
| 'XRS/5' on 75kHz from W4DEX in NC |
Is Your Miniwhip Too High?
 |
| The Mini-Whip at University of Twente's (Netherlands) Remote Receiver |
A recent posting to Yahoo's ndblist Group described an interesting experiment by Dirk Claessens regarding the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) versus height of his PAØRDT active whip. Dirk's tests were posted on Yahoo's Navtex DXing Group where some further interesting discussion seemed to confirm his findings.
Here is what Dirk discovered, backed-up with his graph data, clearly pointing to the 'ideal height' at his location ... and probably yours as well.
Hi all,
You may recall that to get rid of a source of QRM, my whip is now hanging from a rope-and-pulley system, about 5 .5 mtr from the house, at a height of 7 meter agl.
As the height of the whip can easily be changed, this is an ideal situation to test the behaviour of the whip wrt noise levels, optimal height etc..
I had done this test before some 4 years ago, but not very precise. Time to do it again, and documenting it.
What I also wanted to check, is if there were any noise sources of the own house possibly reaching the whip.
(how far does the "noise bubble" go in function of the height?)
The Perseus was tuned to 549 KHz Deutschlandfunk Nordkirchen, the station closest to 518.
2 markers were set, one to the signal, and a reference marker in a quiet spot nearby on 543 KHz, to get a reading for the noise floor.
The whip was then lowered in "1 meter each minute" steps, readings were taken and written to the marker file.
First the absolute values were plotted.
Note that: blue = noise floor, red = signal, and that the left and right axis scales have identical spans of 19dB, but are shifted, in order to get a compact graph.
We see that for a delta height of 6 meters:
-the noise floor goes up ~8dB, or 8/6 = 1.3 dB/m, almost linearly.
-the signal goes up ~14 dB, or 14/6 = 2.3 dB/m, clearly curved and showing a maximum at ~5..7 m.
The continuous lines are polynomic (2nd degree) regression lines.
The noise on the measurement values seems to increase with decreasing height. Was this caused by my body standing under the whip, and near to the whip for the lowest measurements??
What really matters of course, is the signal over noise value, this is plotted below:
-Within a narrow 1 dB band, the curve shows a clear optimum in the region of 4..7 m agl, a familiar value often given as optimal by Roelof.
-The measurement was performed during the day and thus with ground wave propagation. As the whip is truly omnidirectional, I cannot see a reason why the behaviour would be different at low angle DX signals.
- At 5.5 meter from the house, the whip seems to be outside of the "noise bubble"
and later, following discussion:
I have just checked the noise floor again at 518 (with no signal present)
Perseus set to 125 kS/s, Span/RBW 25/30.5
Shield grounded: -125 dBm
Not grounded: -110 dBm
That's a whopping 15 dB difference!
I have also buried the coax ~20cm deep from the grounding point to where it enters the house.
The ideal height was also that recommended by Roelof, PAØRDT, originally and points out that one of antenna-building's most sacred commandments ... "the higher the better", is not always true!
I have often recommended this simple antenna for those looking for a very effective yet low-footprint receiving antenna for use on the LF and MF bands.
Much more information about Roelof's popular miniwhip may be found in previous blog discussions here.
IC-7300 LF / MF Receive Performance
 | ||
| courtesy: Icom's youtube |
Finbar recently had the opportunity to borrow and test-drive a spanking new Icom IC-7300. Like many of those interested in the LF / MF bands, he was particularly curious about its receiving performance in this part of the spectrum. His present mainstay LF receiver is the Icom R-75, which by any standard, is an excellent performer on the broadcast band and below.
Here are Finbar's anecdotal observations made with a borrowed IC-7300:
" ... my nearest radio amateur friend really surprised
me yesterday by telling me he had bought the new Icom 7300 SDR
transceiver. He offered me a quick loan to try it out. I drove the 9 km
straight away and getting home set it up side by side with my Icom R75.
3 hours later I returned it to it's owner having gained a valuable
chance to test it.
First off, he forgot to give me the instruction manual, but after a
short interval I had it sorted out, having seen the numerous videos, on line.
I disabled the MW attenuation and made sure not to have the Pre-amps
on, otherwise, within the medium wave band, it becomes very messy,
as one would expect.
Basically my R75 produced sharper, more sensitivity in the NDB band,
with some signals on the Icom 7300 being very weak to unreadable,
whereas the Icom R75 gave a much more solid signal, on those very weak
signals.
I did not test the rig on short wave, nor did I transmit or even key
it up, in any mode. I was much more interested in it's apparent receive
capabilities.
I will not be buying an Icom 7300, my Icom R75 is just fine and a
great receiver.
Don't get me wrong, the 7300 is a fine set, but as I see it, it
is the first of this new generation of non PC based SDR sets, and very welcome, at that. However the screen is just too small and crowded. Anyone used to a Perseus screen would be irritated by the sheer volume of screen and sub screen, all of which deserve a proper amount of space.
The subsequent new SDR based transceivers by both Icom and other
set makers, will I expect, contain a larger screen, together with an
ability to feed the video screen into to a PC type monitor, yet
allowing the user to use an SDR type transceiver or receiver without being tied down to a PC.
I look forward to these more comprehensive sets coming on the market.
This is just the beginning of a new phase in receiver and transceiver
SDR technology, integrated in the sets without a lumbering PC having to be
run alongside. This will be a breath of fresh air. Bring it on."
Although I don't believe this is the first non-PC based SDR transceiver, it may be the first 'entry-level' radio of this type. These are one ham's observations made over a short period with one particular unit and your experiences may be much different.
Finbar would be very interested in comments on his observations as well as comments on your own experience with the IC-7300's receiver on the LF bands.
The R-75, although now discontinued, still remains one of the best performing LF receivers, dollar-for-dollar, if you're still looking.
 |
| Icom R-75 |
As well, from my own experience, I can vouch for the superb receive performance of the Icom 756 PRO III on the LF and MF bands.
 |
| courtesy: http://www.icomcanada.com |
Hunting For NDB’s In CLE 206
This coming weekend will see another CLE challenge, this time in the LF band from 190 - 239.9 kHz.
'CLE's' are 'Co-ordinated Listening Events', and NDB DXers around the world focus their listening time on one small slice of the NDB spectrum.
One nice catch to try for is 'LU' on 214 kHz shown on the left. The 'LU' NDB is in a breathtaking location, high on a mountain meadow at the foot of the North Cascade mountain range. In spite of the towering mountain peaks to the east and to the south, 'LU' is well heard, being reported as far east as Massachusetts and as far west as Hawaii.
The antenna is a 100' top-loaded vertical with, presumably, an extensive ground system as this is a very large site. The transmitter is a 500 watt Nautel. 'LU' is about 20 miles north-east of the Abbotsford Int'l Airport, Vancouver's alternate.
From CLE coordinator Brian Keyte (G3SIA), comes the following reminder:
Our 206th Co-ordinated Listening Event is next weekend.
Do join in if you can. First-time CLE logs will also be very welcome.
Days: Fri. 22 - Mon. 25 April, Midday-Midday, your local time
Frequencies: NDBs from 190 - 239.9 kHz
PLUS: Normal NDBs on 'half-way' frequencies nnn.5 kHz
(from 190.5 - 999.5 kHz)
Both halves are for everyone to try.
Away from Europe many of the frequencies below 240 kHz are busy with
NDBs. In Europe there are very few there, but some DX ones might be heard from North America and maybe from a few other places.
The normal NDBs (not DGPS) which have carriers on the 'half-way'
frequencies (e.g. 284.5 DY, 333.5 VOG, 370.5 LB, 390.5 ITR, 433.5 HEN)
are scattered across Europe but there are very few of them elsewhere.
'Hot spots' are ENG and ITA.
These half-frequencies give comfortable QRM-free listening and probably
some good catches as a result.
America has only one or two (e.g. 381.5 SJX) but East and West coasters
might hear some DX ones.
We last used these 'rules' for CLE190 in January 2015.
Please send your CLE log to the List in a plain text email if possible
(not in an attachment) with 'CLE206' at the start of its title.
Show on each log line:
# The date (e.g. 2016-04-22, etc., or just 22) and UTC.
(the date changes at 00:00 UTC)
# kHz (the nominal published frequency, if known)
# The Call Ident.
Show those main items FIRST - other optional details such as Location
and Distance go LATER in the same line.
If you send interim logs, please also send a 'Final' (complete) log.
As always, tell us your own location and brief details of the equipment
that you were using during the weekend.
Good listening - enjoy the CLE
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Keyte G3SIA ndbcle'at'gmail.com
Location: Surrey, SE England (CLE co-ordinator)
----------------------------------------------------------
(If you wish you could use any one remote receiver for your loggings,
stating the location and owner - with their permission if required.
A remote listener may NOT also use another receiver, local or remote,
to make further loggings for the same CLE).
73
Brian
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 ... 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.
