Has EURAO got itself into a mess?

Recently, EURAO started offering third party liability insurance for new members.  Invaluable and indeed essential for anyone operating away from their home, the offer of EURAO membership and free insurance for just 10 Euro must be the deal of the decade.

Except, EURAO has been very slow to produce any details of the insurance offered, and that some members will already be relying upon.

I asked EURAO about the contract wording some weeks ago now.  They said the text was in translation.

This morning, EURAO sent a general circular saying how much discussion there had been about the insurance during a recent online conference.  But it still didn't produce any detail on the terms of the insurance.  It did, though, provide a link to the offer page.

I've asked again about this on the EURAO Facebook page this morning.  In fairness to EURAO, they are quick to respond, and there does seem to have been a bit of a panic this morning to produce something. 

At the moment, I've a PDF document to a French language text.  Even though it's posted on FB, there's a curious statement that it's for my "eyes only".  Well, it's all public now! In fact, reading the comments on FB from EURAO again, it seems they wrongly believed they were conducting an internal discussion!

Sadly, my French isn't good enough for conversation, let alone legal texts, so I will have to slowly wade through it with online translation.

One thing that seems to be odd, mindful that it is a translation, is the limit in the insurance contract to 35 members, which presumably means the insurance was some form of special offer by the insurance company (or its broker) to EURAO.  That may explain the nebulous references to an 'experimental' offer that I've seen mentioned by EURAO recently.

EURAO have made an error in offering this product, which people have of course accepted, without having, say, French and English texts immediately available.  At the moment, nobody knows what the terms are or, for my part, whether the insurance actually covers members in the UK, which is coming out of the EU very shortly, should that be relevant.

Well, I suppose I haven't lost anything, given the insurance was 'free'.  But I can't, yet at least, rely on an insurance that nobody knows the conditions for.

CQ from the Titanic's grid (or as close as makes no difference)!

RMS Titanic at Cobh Harbour, Ireland where the final 123 passengers alighted.

If there are two things I like about amateur radio, it's (1) the unexpected and (2) making QSOs with maritime mobile stations.

This afternoon, over on 12m, I saw YU2AX/MM suddenly appear on the 12m FT8 waterfall.  It's a while since I logged a /MM QSO, so I turned the antenna towards mid-Atlantic, where I guessed he may be, and indeed found him coming back straight away.

Luckily, YU2AX was very much ready for my request: 'PSE GRID 73' at the end of the QSO.  He immediately sent 'YU2AX/MM GN41'.

Looking GN41 up, I could see it was very close to the location of the wreck of the Titanic.  On further examination, it seems the Titanic is desperately close to, but just outside GN41.  Titanic actually lies in GN51ar, about 4km east of the GN41 boundary.  Not that it matters, because Maidenhead is just a grid, and YU2AX was definitely in the Titanic's general area.

Nearly, but not quite in GN41.  But who cares, really?

Someone was kind enough, following a QSO, to send me a beautiful, large stamp of the Titanic on the centenary of the sinking.  I've kept it safely ever since.

Lightning stops play

A very warm spell, up to 30 degrees Celsius in North Wales yesterday, gave way in the evening to quite lively thunderstorm activity.  This is rare in this part of the world, as the sea moderates the strong convection seen inland.

So, that put an end to radio fun here!  Sadly, the main storms were out into the Irish Sea before darkness, so I didn't capture any good lightning photos.  Ah well!

The thunderstorms begin. 

RSGB: the final farewell.

By any stretch of the imagination, the experience I and my daughter have had with the RSGB has never been a good one.

I haven't been a member for many years.  Within weeks of joining in 2011, I found myself referring the RSGB to the Information Commissioner's Office for a malicious data breach that can only be described as utterly incomprehensible - and, as the ICO determined - unlawful.

I actually had to ask the society for an apology, which they did issue, but only under the protection of a letter issued 'without prejudice' - showing their lawyers feared being sued for data protection breaches and/or libel.

Apart from all that, I have never felt the RSGB does anything like the kind of lobbying and campaigning work that is undeniably necessary to improve the lot of the amateur radio enthusiast.

Last month, the RSGB launched, with much fanfare, a 'campaign' to tackle VDSL interference, which is quite widespread - and the cause of much angst and terrible disappointment in those who have, in some cases, operated without problem for very many years.

But, quite unlike the kind of society-led campaign you would hope to find, what the RSGB were actually expecting was that each individual would complain to OFCOM themselves!

Roll on a month, and the latest RadCom (already in the bin), announces that a whopping 60 people have made a complaint as requested.

That's 60 people out of an RSGB membership of some 20,000, and a UK amateur population of about 75,000.  In other words, less than 0.1% of the total population have reacted.

Now, OFCOM are already widely seen as little more than a seller of microwave spectrum to the mobile phone guys.  With few resources, and no income at all from amateur licences, OFCOM is obviously not going to be rushing to the community's aid any time soon. 

And then, the wonderful news from the RSGB that, having listened to them and made a complaint about VDSL, those people should now "expect to identify" which stations - precisely - they can't receive as a direct and sole result of VDSL.  That is not going to be a trivial exercise and, I would suggest, one that no ordinary member of the radio community will ever be able to demonstrate to a legal standard.

So, everyone's been hyped-up, hardly anyone has bothered listening, but those who have now have an impossible standard of proof to demonstrate.  Wonderful!  You'll excuse OFCOM for laughing in our faces and continuing to do nothing to help amateurs.

Well, all this, plus some rather dismissive comments only this week from the society about my daughter's achievement in gaining a licence at age 11, means that we no longer wish to be associated with the Home Counties-centric, committee urchin infested RSGB.  Nor do we wish to benefit from the free young persons' membership, which we have today cancelled.

Now we're an EURAO family.  Not ideal for national issues, but then, what is the RSGB actually changing for the better in terms of planning rights, RFI mitigation, etc?  Not even with 20,000 members are they able to offer the extremely valuable free public liability insurance currently offered by EURAO, and which is bound to attract new members.

So, thanks for nothing, RSGB.  You won't be missed - at all.

Alaska - on 28MHz!

Quite amazed to see my 28MHz FT8 signal achieve a peak -03dB SNR/2500Hz with KL7TC at 11:16UT this morning.

T|he great circle path is a lot shorter than looking at a flat map leads one to believe - just over 4000 miles.

Even so, it's an intriguing path at the peak of midsummer, and the strength of my ~25W signal, coming from a vertical delta loop operated at its first harmonic and so with quite a high pattern, must point to Es.

And, yes, I did check with Bill that he wasn't listening remotely (he wasn't).

This therefore seems to be a westward polar path that is, to the east, leading to lots of Europe-Japan QSOs all the way up to 6m at the moment.

NLC coverage a couple of days ago.

When you look at how NLC - intimately related to, and essentially the visual manifestation of PMSE - is now covering the polar regions down to mid latitudes, this kind of DX is perhaps not really surprising - though many will argue it is some big mystery, devoid of explanation.

Happy summer solstice!

I hope the solstice brings you peace, Es and lots of QSOs!  Certainly plenty going on on the higher HF bands.

Sadly, our midsummer day, and the next day, is a massive disappointment in that it's currently around 90km/h winds - more like mid-autumn, and no clear overnight skies for more than three weeks!

Midsummer sunrise, Stonehenge.  Image: Wikimedia.

Thank you, QRZ.com!

For those who have just a little social intelligence, it's a well-known fact that, if you decide to ban something, the consequence is, inevitably, far more interest in what has been banned than had you simply left it alone.  The BBC know this, from their long history of banning certain popular songs.

From that, we can only conclude that QRZ.com doesn't have much social intelligence.  It decided to ban GB9BLM - my Black Lives Matter special event callsign last week, based on a spurious and false assertion that GB9 calls do not exist, and so I had provided "false information" to QRZ.com.  I particularly liked that latter claim, sounding, as it does, like 'undermining the State'.

Following the ban and events that occurred as a result, as a sole operator with other things to do in the day, I managed over 1000 QSOs in two weeks.

There was fantastic support from all over Europe, Russia and, I was especially glad to see, America.


In no time at all, before I myself had realised the call had been removed, others had already noticed the removal, and were questioning why.  Some of those asking were US-based lawyers.

This sparked a lot of discussion on Reddit, none of which was the usual poison seen on forums - including those of QRZ.com itself.

In fact, many of the comments were quite heartbreaking, with licensed black operators saying how excluded they felt in the hobby of amateur radio. There were some comments of a similar nature from gay people, which I can only imagine must be particularly hated amongst the ageing, gun-toting white conservatives that troll QRZ.com forums, amongst others.

Indeed, I myself found the whole experience of this banning very troubling indeed.  By Fred's own words, QRZ.com holds about "800,000 callsigns" from across the world.  I think that does mean QRZ.com ought to be far more alive to cultures that aren't white American.

QRZ.com, let's remember, gave rise to serious questions about why they really banned the site, given that part of Fred Lloyd's email to me said:

"Your team wishes to paint every non-black person on earth as racist, and in doing so you have significantly diluted your argument."

The absurdity of this needs no further comment, other than to say the obvious assumption that I was black, and a member of the BLM "team" were both completely wrong.

Fred continued to try and apportion blame for the banning to my actions, all of which happened after Fred had banned the callsign.

After approaches from supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, I agree with them that not deleting my reinstated pages on QRZ.com, as I had intended, is the best way forward.  That way, I can keep spreading the good word about various social issues.  But in general, my web presence is now better served by Hamcall.

Fascinating 50MHz specular reflections

Late this morning, strong transatlantic 6m Es opened up, which showed remarkable, repeating signal bursts over a long period of time. Update: I then heard the same thing with US-only 6m signals 29/06/2020.

The signal bursts in the US signals are almost certainly the result of glancing specular reflections from gravity wave fronts in at least one, and probably two or three Es clouds.

Audacity audio spectrum plot of Es bursts.

Wave and background motion in Es clouds is very fast - tens to hundreds of metres per second.  The very short duration bursts, sounding very much like meteor reflections, are likely to be made even shorter by the multiple reflections that must line up to allow the path to be heard.

NLC can be considered visual manifestations of Es.  Light 'bursts' are seen in the highly reflective regions where sun-cloud-observer path lines up perfectly.  The same happens with the TX-Es-RX path of VHF radio.

Argo visual plot of received FT8 audio of 50MHz signals, arrows showing the obvious pulses.  The brightest pulse on top left appears half way through a FT8 cycle from virtually nowhere, peaking 40dB above background in fractions of a second.

Recording the bursts with Argo allows them to be visualised, and also measured in intensity.  The peaks of the bursts are 40dB enhancements over background (-60dB against a -100dB background).  You will notice, especially in the second recording, a highly unusual 'metallic' quality to the sound.

In a typical Facebook trolling exercise, someone unilaterally dimissied this as anything unusual, asserting it was "meteor or aircraft scatter" - but not venturing to say which.   I have never heard this kind of effect happen over and over again over many hours, even during major meteor showers.  Sporadic bursts, sure, but not of this quality.  The problem with this explanation is that all propagation can periodically come to a stop at 6m, including the bursts.  There is no good reason why sporadic meteor bursts should simultaneously stop in step with general Es.


There's no way it's aicraft scatter, because air traffic is 95% lower than normal at present, and I have never, ever heard aircraft scatter from here at 50MHz even when traffic is normal.
 

Mesospheric · 50.313.000, USER-U

Mesospheric · 50.313.000, USER-U

Summer sun brings out the idiots.

Here we go.  No sooner does the weather warm up and Es gets going, than some idiot with a white stick antenna on 12m starts sending 15s bursts of police siren sounds.

Great!

No politics on QRZ.com?

When someone with prominence in a field of activity - such as Fred Lloyd of QRZ.com - tells you something, like it or not, you have to look, read, absorb and decide.

Amongst a long rant leading to a banning of GB9BLM, Fred said:

"QRZ does not engage in political proselytizing and never in our 25 years have we supported any political cause.  We openly deny such speech to all without regard to any sociopolitical affiliation.  Your cause is no different in that regard."

Really?

During a discussion that was kindly raised on QRZ.com to calmly look at whether GB9BLM was valid (which of course, it is), the callsign K3XR appeared, making there what seemed to be an innocuous comment.

K3XR was later picked out on a Reddit discussion as a callsign page that is active, not banned, and most certainly, by any definition, "political".

For many reasons, it's really worth looking at K3XR's page; believe me, it is!

So, that completely kills the idea that QRZ.com doesn't allow politics, whether it be on their gutter-level forums or as an individual callsign.  K3XR's broadcast to the world seems to rather go against quite a bit of QRZ.com's policies:

QRZ.com: Epilogue

Well, it's been a long day or two.

What can I say about the banning of GB9BLM at this stage, beyond the fact that it was reinstated - not under any request by me - together with a public and private apology?

Well, QRZ.com's owner has been in touch by direct email.  Exchanges have been polite, if rather pointed at times.

I think Fred (I'd never heard of him before this debacle) would not mind me saying he is both accepting having made a series of  errors, whilst still trying to blame me for prompting the banning.

This, Fred claims, was by infuriating him in a support ticket complaint (not sent personally to Fred, of course) that I found the unexplained banning of GB9BLM "to be racist" as an act, i.e. not that any individual, none of whom I knew about, were racist themeselves, though that could have been the case, of course. 

For the record, and whilst it bothers me not at all, Fred then immediately used the same term against me personally (see earlier posts).  At that point, Fred's words suggest he believed I was both black and what he termed a "team" member of BLM, even though simply looking at my parent callsign page would have shown his error.

How QRZ.com chose to explain this was not at all about opposition to BLM.

Fred says the outcome (of considering the banning) could have been different, had I not said that "I found" the banning "to be racist".

OK.  If that is a sincere position, then the reason actually given for the banning of GB9BLM - that GB9 callsigns don't exist - should not have been an issue, because that is a fact of licensing alone, independent of any views expressed about racism, racial equality - or anything else at all.

Worse, there is a fatal - and rather obvious - flaw of logic here: the only reason I contacted QRZ.com to ask why it had been banned was, erm, that they had already banned it by then!  I could have licked Fred's boots, but without time travel and an ability to change the past, it could make no difference.  

Fred, you had banned the callsign before I ever contacted you about anything to do with this callsign, except that QRZ.com had been asked previously to change the country flag, which you did without complaint, identifying a problem, or banning.

You also seem to forget that QRZ.com deleted an earlier forum topic, before I even applied for GB9BLM, that had started with my post asking merely the question: 'why are there no BLM special calls?'  That also seems to have happened after an informer - it may or may not have been the one equating black lives to potatoes, demanded it be taken down. 

So, the sum experience I have is that, whenever I mention BLM - and it has never involved contentious comment or abuse - whether it be callsign or discussion, QRZ.com have taken it down.  It is up to you, the reader, to look at the evidence and pattern, and make your own mind up as to why.  

In relation to the changing of the country flag a couple of days before GB9BLM was banned, QRZ.com claim in recent e-mails they didn't know about GB9BLM until the informer came forward, which is clearly untrue, given I raised a support ticket about the country flag before the call was banned, which was diligently acted upon by QRZ.com.

I then asked Fred what 'OFCOM database' he had actually looked at, and when it was released, so that I could figure out how he concluded GB9 calls don't exist.  I also asked him how come there were 52 other GB9-something calls on QRZ, none of which had been banned.

It took me two attempts to get the OFCOM information from Fred.  He said that he had in fact consulted a "FOIA" response on the OFCOM web site. That is not the same - at all -  as "consulting a OFCOM  database [of callsigns]", which anyway does not appear to exist.  Indeed, QRZ.com itself tells the world exactly that in its FAQ section (accessed 15/6/20):

Just to reinforce this point, in this video, starting at around 36m 45s in, Fred confirms the lack of official information about licenses beyond the US and Canada (in Europe, this is because of data protection laws).  The specific assertion is made at 37m 16s. 

A little digging would suggest Fred looked at this document, which is in response to someone wanting a list of all callsigns in the UK.

Now, if we bother to read that document, it gives various links that one can follow that can lead you to this page, which is all about UK callsign allocations.  I think that this is the document Fred relied upon to assert that no GB9 callsigns exist (Fred, you can issue a correction that I will publish if this is not the case).

Now, the unfortunate part for Fred is in the detail, which is:

Since then, GB9 - as Fred's own database of 52 other GB9 callsigns ought to have alerted him (which he kindly admits is the case, further admitting he was "negligent" in this) - has become available as a standard NoV call.  OFCOM, being a much-criticised public body, have of course not updated the document linked to to reflect this.

But even having accepted before and after the banning that no UK database is available to him, making errors and reinstated GB9BLM, Fred then perpetuates the deflection of blame (read: desperately clutches at straws) by expressing surprise that I have not sent him a copy of the OFCOM approval document as yet.  He also holds on to the 'OFCOM database' in his 'apology' that the database was "opaque", explaining away his error.  Well Fred, I'd love to see which database that actually was, because so far as I and anyone else can tell, there was no such database you could have consulted at all, opaque or otherwise.

Well Fred, you are not a UK (or any other) enforcement authority, and I am not obliged to provide evidence of my authorisations to you.  You have already accepted your error, so why keep insisting I jump through pointless  hoops?  Report me to OFCOM, if you still believe I am doing something wrong.  For others who legitimately still wonder about GB9 calls, why don't I show you the approval document:

So, if nothing else, we all have to be careful that information that seems to uphold our view isn't actually wrong - in this case, out of date.  We should also be consistent about why a callsign has been banned, rather than conflating that reason with 168 preceding words about Black Lives Matter that are wholly irrelevant to the erroneous, "false" callsign-based ban

There never was a response from Fred or QRZ.com in general (I waited 9 months before using the word 'never') as to why the other 52 GB9-something  calls, none linked to racial equality, but some linked to loosely political topics, were not identified as presenting "false information" and not banned by QRZ.com. 

I think Fred and I understand one another slightly better, but we certainly are not seeing eye-to-eye.  As I put it, we don't have to be friends to avoid being enemies.  Despite his best efforts to gently corral me to do so, I won't be accepting guilt for things said after Fred had banned the page based at least partly, if we accept his account at all, on, as he now unambiguously admits, wrong information.

And that is, I think, where this sad story must rest. But thanks to all those who made such supportive comments (and actions), found here.

Minor update, 18/06/2020:  Two images I used on the BLM page of QRZ.com, which are used under a well-publicised non-commercial agreement by Getty, vanished during the past 24 hours, which I later reinstated myself, after which they have remained.  I do not know if that is a system mistake, as I have seen this happen before, or whether there was an automated or manual decision to remove them. 

QRZ.com and Black Lives Matter (Update 1)

[This post is updated here] Overnight, this blog - or the post about Black Lives Matter callsign, GB9BLM, received over 2000 visits. I also received an apology from QRZ.com, both on their forum and privately.  Note I do not accept the explanation given, not least because someone has found ~50 other GB9 calls on the QRZ DB lists.  I myself have had several GBx calls previously on QRZ.com, without issue. The cause of so many visits was a supporter looking at what exactly had happened, when and how.  This is now a forum topic on QRZ.com, though I note it has now been shut down to new comments, which is probably a good idea from QRZ.com's point of view. The key fact is that QRZ.com made the sole, specific claim that I had provided "false information" to their database in the form of the callsign GB9BLM, and that their 'OFCOM database' showed there was no such thing as a GB9 callsign.  Accordingly, they removed the GB9BLM listing and page. I am not sure what database this is, or how it is their claimed database access is so up-to-date that it includes a callsign allocated automatically only a few days earlier.  (SEE: 'EPILOGUE' POST FOR LATEST ON THIS) All a bit odd, because now the army of supporters find plenty of examples of GB9 callsigns existing on the QRZ.com database, and which have not been removed for the reason that QRZ.com specifically gave of the callsign representing false information. 1 page of 2, list of GB9-something calls on QRZ.com, accessed 14:45UT 06/06/2020. That, and the fact that GB9BLM ran successfully, without complaint or problem, on QRZ.com for several days before someone - hiding behind an anonymous admin cover - removed it. Indeed, a day or so after I had activated the callsign on QRZ.com, I asked for the automatically-allocated 'England' flag (itself showing that it wasn't an invalid call) for GB9BLM to be changed for Wales, which required a support ticket looked at by, presumably, a human operator.  This was done in a few hours, again with no protest or complaint (or banning of the page). Today, I was advised by a supporter that GB9BLM has been restored on QRZ.com.  So has my usual callsign. "The support team sent the following message: Jan, Now that authenticity has been established, We have reinstated the GB9BLM listing, as well as your account(s). Please accept our apologies for the incident. 73  QRZ    73, The QRZ Support Team" Unfortunately for QRZ.com, I have not authorised the re-publication of my personal details on their page, which I had asked them to - and they had acted upon and confirmed in writing - to remove permanently.  This is a clear breach of GDPR and provides all those of a violent inclination with the address to go to, should they want to take direct action. To be clear, just because someone at QRZ.com has either realised someone acted outside their actual policies, or simply that this was just too much like bad press, regardless of their beliefs, I myself have not asked to reinstate my account, and have not authorised the publication of any of it. I am also not planning to use QRZ.com ever again, unless QRZ.com publish a full apology on their landing page, explaining why they claimed GB9 callsigns do not exist when even a cursory knowledge of callsigns shows they do and when ~50 GB9 calls already exist - like mine did for some days - on their own site. The latest is that I received an apology for "the incident" (and not an 'error') from QRZ.com, claiming that "authenticity has been established" by now. I'm sorry, QRZ.com.  Whilst I accept there is a degree of amends attempted here, the clinging to the story that the GB9 call prefix was somehow illegitimate simply won't wash.  At all. And remember, my normal callsign wasn't removed because of authenticity issues, as the apology implies: that has run since 2011 on QRZ.com, and was removed because I asked for it to be removed.

OFCOM EMF Safety - nothing but mystery.

Some weeks ago, I involved myself with the OFCOM consultation on proposals to force all UK amateur radio operators to demonstrate that their emissions did not pose a health risk to the public.

Unfortunately, very few people seem to take an interest in these bureaucratic changes.  As a result, they often occur with little or no scrutiny.

Key to the proposals, should they become rules, is the technical ability of amateur hobbyists to accurately measure and carry out computations on RF fields.

Remember, in the ultimate case, where someone next door wanted (as they inevitably will) to claim your 12-element Yagi was a risk to their health, you would have to show very accurately the actual fields in operation are safe to a legal standard, in defence of your rights to operate.

OK, so doing all this as standard, regardless of whether someone is complaining, could be said to be a wise step that will head them off at the pass if they do complain.  But we can only relax if the method we used is highly standardised, can be relied upon to be accurate and beyond reasonable legal challenge, or is based on a standard mathematical assessment that everyone accepts, rather than physical measurement.

The introduction of the words and concept of EMF radiation safety will add to the scientifically-illiterate panic amongst councillors and town planning staff, which will again erode our ability to get the installations we are licensed to use.

What was very unusual throughout the consultation text was the clear evidence that the whole EMF safety case was based on the roll-out of 5G mobile data; even OFCOM's consultation response form was entitled '5G-something'!  5G, of course, has very little relevance to amateur radio operations, and the public don't generally take to social media to claim their emissions are spreading virus pandemics!

I put it to OFCOM that this exercise was (a) overwhelmingly motivated by perceived developing concern amongst the public about 5G masts and (b) that including amateur radio in this exercise was irrational, irrelevant and unnecessary.

OFCOM accepted that the motivation was indeed 5G.  They changed the name of the consultation form so that it was no longer just '5G-something', although that was a bit too much like retrospectively covering their true intentions.

When I asked about the evidence that there were reasonable circumstances (i.e. not standing in front of a beam antenna at full legal power for 3 hours, which isn't reasonable) in which amateurs had, or reasonably could cause public harm, OFCOM said they did not have such evidence.  They said that they were simply following Public Health England, who follow ICNIRP - a non-democratically accountable body that has been criticised in the academic press for conflicts of interest (the first example I've personally ever seen of such a thing).

ICNIRP, incidentally, have a highly unusual definition of 'HF', being 100kHz to...300GHz!

The inference, then, was that PHE would have the evidence.

A FoIA request to PHE for peer-reviewed evidence of likely harm from HF frequencies (as normally understood to be ~3-30MHz) at UK amateur power levels revealed that they, too, had no such evidence (or any other kind of evidence).

So, OFCOM has no evidence that HF radiation from amateur installations is likely to be harmful to the public, nor has Public Health England.  It seems ICNIRP say 'jump', and the regulators say 'how high?'

ICNIRP has not seen fit to respond to any of my enquiries, which hardly instils confidence in their perception and practice of accountability.

So why is there an exercise to propose all amateurs must comply with some EMF safety limits that have never been shown to be relevant to them?  How did we come to be included with an exercise about 5G?  OFCOM refuses to say on some nebulous grounds that, if I had the time to challenge it, probably wouldn't stand up. 

OFCOM also wanted to play a long game on the content of exchanges between themselves and the RSGB on this issue, but I did not pursue that further for lack of time.  Personal correspondence with the RSGB showed they were rather miffed at being asked, and couldn't see the problem, in keeping with their usual support of the regulator.  As a private company, the RSGB doesn't have to (and won't) release any information under FoIA, despite the fact it is paid for by member subscription.

All in all, a complete irrational mess, with no evidence to support the idea of EMF compliance for amateurs ever having been suggested, let alone put into a consultation and then, in all likelihood, practice.

Vertical delta: still going strong.

A quick overnight run with 200mW WSPR at 14MHz showed continued good results of the kind seen in the past here.

Rather astonished to see that, in comparison to the selected other station (also 200mW, hitting 6000+ spots in the past 24 hours), I was a mean 21dB stronger on DX paths, and up to 31dB in one instance!

From centre to right (ignore at left), overnight 200mW 14MHz WSPR.

Huge (advantageous) SNR difference at DX distances.

QRZ.com: Disturbing

[LATEST DEVELOPMENTS WITH THIS STORY (13/06/2020) FOUND HERE]

For a few days, an entirely legitimate and peaceful GB9BLM page has run on QRZ.com, supporting the Black Lives Matter Movement.

I couldn't quite believe my eyes when I found the page had been removed this afternoon.

I'm glad to say GB9BLM is attracting a lot of support on the bands - far more than previous SES calls I've operated.  As a result of QRZ's actions, I've put in a request that all my callsigns and pages be removed from QRZ.com, who ought to be ashamed of themselves (but aren't).

I've asked QRZ.com for an explanation (see update, below), but on the face of it, this is really quite disturbing.  This highlights the dangers of a hobby now dominated by a very small number of commercial websites, all of which are US-based, and all dominated by white men.  They carry far too much power which they wield, it seems, entirely arbitrarily.

Fuck you, QRZ.com!  I was always fed up with your (blocked) 30+ browsing tracker attempts every time I visited, anyway.

UPDATE:  This ludicrous diatribe of an explanation emerged from  an unidentified lunatic at QRZ.com.  Look at the orange highlighted text.  There is no such thing as an 'OFCOM database' that is so up to date that it includes a callsign granted just a few days ago.  I also don't know of any OFCOM searchable database at all.

There is, though, a Wikipedia page that tells you GB prefixes do exist.  But he knows all this, because when you enter a GB call into the QRZ.com database, it merrily accepts it as a valid UK call.  Also, I'm as obviously not a BLM 'team' member as I am not, as Lunatic assumes, black.

According to QRZ.com, GB9-something wasn't on the OFCOM list.  But this didn't stop all these appearing (a second page is not shown) without being banned on QRZ.com

"[y]ou may find us racist, just as we may find you to be one as well.   Just because you posted the BLM call sign, it doesn't prove that you're not one.  You may deny that you're a racist, but in doing so, the activists are saying that it proves that you are.  Your team wishes to paint every non-black person on earth as racist, and in doing so you have significantly diluted your argument.  Never in my life have I seen a case where the unwillingness to actively participate in a movement conveys some sort of guilt by association.  What ever happened to the right to one's own private convictions?  I will not share my private convictions with you, and accordingly, you may not draw conclusions from that.
QRZ does not engage in political proselytizing and never in our 25 years have we supported any political cause.  We openly deny such speech to all without regard to any sociopolitical affiliation.  Your cause is no different in that regard.

The page in question was removed because the call sign appears to be ficticious.  We have searched the entire Ofcom database and plainly see that no call sign has the GB9 prefix.  Therefore, we are terminating your account for posting false information on the website, and, at your request we are removing all of your associated activity on the site.
Sincerely, QRZ "


So, we get 168 words about not supporting 'political' causes (which this is not, it's a social rights issue), but the specific reason for banning the page is a clearly fraudulent claim of the call being false!  The trouble with deploying false justifications is that your true position always breaks through.

Here's my OFCOM approval, you dick.  Funny how no other 'GBx' callsign I or anyone else ever operated was found to be 'fictitious', and how your own site accepts and identifies as a UK call any GBx call submitted to it - such as the 52 other GB9-something calls currently listed on your own site!

 And try to get an education; it's 'fictitious', not ficticious.  

eQSL: What's the point?

A long time ago, I started using eQSL.  But, over the years, the volume of incoming QSOs was so great as to make spending time confirming them completely untenable.

You might say: 'but why don't you use a logging program to record and upload QSOs to eQSL?'

It's a fair question, but I was never one of those operators who concentrate more on entering details into a personal log than actually communicating with the other person.  Perhaps in the days of FT8 and not SSB, then this is a lot less of a problem.

With FT8, the log is created as we go along, with little or no need for operator input.  This then all goes straight into LoTW, where signal reports are stripped away, leaving the only test as to the validity of the QSO being whether the other operator confirms it or not.

OK, I can probably upload the ADIF into eQSL fairly simply as well.  But uploading a log into one database is more than enough effort for me.  Thankfully, whilst I enjoy radio, it isn't a lifestyle here.  Apart from proving to myself that I can put together effective systems, I have nothing to prove to others.

And when I did upload years and years of QSOs into eQSL yesterday, whilst I got one or two complaints about 'missing RST' from the more obsessive operators, the fact is that this doesn't prevent me qualifying for eQSL 'awards'.

So I can't really see the point of eQSL, other than purely as a way of satisfying personal vanity and some random business granting meaningless 'awards' in ever-more ludicrous categories that ensures purchased certificates or plates ($85.00 each!) brings in plenty of income. I haven't claimed every certificate I could, but paying for what I have would cost me $1700 to get glass plate certificates for the all.  Ha ha ha!

The basic convention of confirming a QSO is done simply via LoTW, which is the de facto site for this purpose, even though it, too, seeks to make money from certificates.  One QSO confirmation site is enough.  The only thing left is to delete my eQSL account, I think.

And if you thought this is all negative rubbish, why not scroll through all the little 'certificates' I collected yesterday.  By the time you get to the second, you will already be thinking: 'wow, this is really boring'.  Exactly!  It is!

Back to basics

Following recent developments under 'comments', which came to a head this week with what were, to me, unacceptable and wrong views about the origins of racism expressed by a fellow blogger, I have decided to permanently remove the ability for others to comment altogether.

This blog began - and largely remains - as a sort of diary or aide-mémoire for those things I get up to in radio.  So it is now purely and solely that. 

In the recent words of radio influencer OH8STN, "what you 'feel' doesn't matter".  This is my take on life.  Yours can be expressed on your own platform.

Luckily, comments were always limited to one or two people, so this will make no difference to anything, whilst still allowing me to remember what CAT settings to use the next time I mess up my software!

As for my fellow blogger, we have been in direct and entirely polite contact only today, and agreed to go our separate, disagreeing ways. 

That's weird!

Well, I know about aircraft scatter, but I never saw such a phenomenon at 14MHz, which is generally of too long a wavelength for that to occur, in many years of operating WSPR.

I wonder what you think was the cause?  An operator-induced effect seems ruled out by the very rapid drift also being accompanied by an increasing signal level, peaking, then decaying. 

14MHz WSPR oddity.

Best time for 14MHz is...

...after sunset and into the post-midnight period at the moment.

Midsummer's eve activity (2013, when I had corner feed for the delta)

Tuning int o 20m at this time is a little like experiencing the band as it is during better solar conditions, with plenty coming in from the US, central and Latin America.

So, why not lose some sleep and do some DX?

12m Hots up!

A busy day on 12m yesterday, as good transatlantic Es provided a lot of stations to work.

This was rather useful, as for one week, I'm operating as GB9BLM (Black Lives Matter).  So delivering the message directly into the US was great!

Bristol BLM protesters decide that honouring slavery in 2020 is long past acceptability.  Image: Russiapost

Signals kept coming in on 12 and 10m from north and central America until at least 01:35UT.

This morning, by 09UT, propagation for my signal to the east coast US was already strong, in some cases reaching 0 to +2dB SNR territory:

09UT situation at 24MHz.

I then had a quick look at one of the FT8 signals coming across from the US, using my 3-ele LFA to listen to the variation in propagation using Argo.

Variation in FT8 signal strength from the US in 15s blocks.

It's very interesting to visually plot the ups and downs, which occur over very short timescales of just a few seconds.  Indeed, one of the propagation people at the RSGB was in contact with me about high resolution propagation studies like this just a few months ago, so there's still plenty to do to develop this idea, regardless of band of interest.  Again, hat tip to John, EI7GL, for prompting these thoughts.