CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RBN Stats for CQWW CW

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RBN Stats for CQWW CW
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:52:45 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 12/9/2019 10:24 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
Why not move them higher in the band?

The same considerations as for CW and SSB -- antenna bandwidth and worldwide frequency allocations. FWIW, I heard very little FT8 during ARRL 160M, possibly because many FT8 ops also work CW. I use it a lot on 160 to work EU, and on 6M to work grids. Like others, I worked a bit of CW in the FT8 watering hole during ARRL 160 when I saw no signals there. After all -- band usage is pretty fluid during contests on 160M, with CW and SSB working well into each others normal range.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>