Author: k1zm--- via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:38:10 -0500
Hi All This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember the origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on Topband. A number of us (myself included) were
Jeff, Many thanks or the well explained history of the 160M band plan. This is good info for relatively newcomers to the band like me. Rich K7ZV _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://
Hi Jeff Agree with most of your comments . . . However - if there was a 160m CW sub-band, it might be a RULE in the USA . . . but it wouldn't apply elsewhere . . . So what would be the point?! I thin
1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW sub-band on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands like 80/40/20/15/10. W8JI and I (then AD8I) also filed petitions w
Thing is, FT8 is by transmitted signal measurement, a narrow band mode just like CW. Even narrower than typical CW. Yet we have CW signals interfering with FT8 users self-perceived window, when they
As long as the CW operator does not decide to transmit "zero beat" with an FT8 signal, there should be no interference from CW to FT8. The issue comes in with FT8 operators who use equipment with lim
The 160 m Band Plan was only fairly recently formalised in Australia, a decade or so ago. We have 1800 - 1875 kHz, with the CW sub-band 1810 - 1840 kHz. The digital narrow band modes seem to have est