I now have FT8 capability HF through 432. It's my least preferred mode. IMO it's a "necessary evil" to have or be left out. If you operate 6M you know what I mean. One thing I'd really like to change
I second the opinion expressed by Ron WZ1V Walt N2WM On 7/12/2018 12:42 PM, Ron Klimas WZ1V wrote: I now have FT8 capability HF through 432. It's my least preferred mode. *IMO it's a "necessary evil
Author: Stan Hilinski via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:11:31 -0400
Ron, sounds good to me but what does the rest of the country think? Stan KA1ZE/3 I now have FT8 capability HF through 432. It's my least preferred mode. IMO it's a "necessary evil" to have or be left
The suggested frequencies for 2m "somewhere between 144.105 and 144.145" would infringe on the 2m EME JT65 activity. Rick, K1DS ________________________________ From: newsvhf-bounces@mailman.qth.net
Yes, very true. And in this area at least (and I'm sure others too) the activity in contests goes down to at least 144.175. If you go very much below that you start to encroach on the EME'ers. I myse
FWIW, In the PNW, 144.174 was chosen as the preferential and common convention frequency for FT8 at last years PNWVHFS Conference. That being said, We may not have the activity levels as seen in othe
Ditto. I was also at the conference and have used 144.174 for FT8 in VE7Land. 144.174 seems to me to be a reasonable choice for the PNW, South Western BC and neighbouring areas. If someone wants to p
Wish I had the problem of not being able to find a spot for FT8 due to all the 2M activity. Lots of open unused freqs in Northern CA. We have also kinda settled on 144.174 however. 73, Tom K6EU _____