On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where did this business about high bands being USB, and low bands being LSB
> come
> from, anyway ?
One explanation here:
http://aditl.com/ham/harc/harcnl/harcnl0111.html
"Why are you on LSB on 40? USB on 20? We continue to try to please
every member, so here's a little history lesson for you newcomers from
Francis Blatt KH6KH. The first SSB exciter was made by Central
Electronics and it was crystal controlled. Do YOU have a 10A or 10B in
your shack? Didn't think so. To save cost the same crystal was used
for 7 and 14 MHz, but that meant you had a doubler, another stage to
get to 20 meters, and the signal is inverted through every stage. So
LOWER on 40, and UPPER Sideband on 20 meters. So that's what hams
used! And got used to using. When Collins introduced a SSB rig with
selectable single side bands (KWS-1, then S-Line), we could choose,
but "it's always been that way" prevailed and we chose LSB on the low
bands and USB on the high bands."
> Are there any technical or legal reasons why we shouldn't switch to USB on 40
> meters ?
Probably not, but we, as contesters, rely on non-contesters calling us
to increase our scores. I doubt that it'd be in our (selfish)
best-interests to start CQing on USB on 40 - those not "in the know"
will just tune on by. Also, those in other regions would run into the
same problem with USB up close to 7200, no?
~Iain / N6ML
> kr2q@optimum.net wrote:
>> Recently, there has been some comment (privately and otherwise) about USA
>> guys being
>> "out of the band" on 40 SSB. Namely, how close to 7125 can you get, not the
>> "ooops"
>> type of split event where you end up using the "wrong" VFO.
>>
>> Call me stupid (nevermind, that's been done before), but why are we still
>> using LSB on 40m?
>>
>> If we would all agree to use USB on 40 SSB, then we could snuggle up against
>> the bottom
>> edge. Yes, this would cause the "reverse" problem at the top end, but
>> really, who is trying
>> to run guys from up there? For most of us, our antennas aren't that broad
>> any way.
>>
>> In theory (or on paper, if you prefer), this would allow us to fit stations
>> in (well, maybe 2 more)
>> in the valuable "lower half" of the phone band. And just think...one less
>> item to complain about.
>>
>> Using USB on 40...wow...talk about extreme "out of the box" thinking. I
>> wonder if that would
>> qualify for the XTREME category in CQWW?
>>
>> de Doug KR2Q
>>
>> PS...this is actually a REAL suggestion.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|