I would say that the band is big enough for all of us. We just need some
coordination so we can get along. There are some open issues on 160 that
have not been totally resolved (like the activity on 1838 kHz for
example). I guess my first comment would be to try to move this out of the
15 kHz JA window. I would not have a problem with it below 1810 kHz.
Tree N6TR
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:35 AM, W2PM <w2pm@aol.com> wrote:
> I would just opine this is a colossal waste of spectrum - not in terms of
> bandwidth per se but the inefficiency and low information transfer rate.
> Moreover propagation testing is really not an issue on 160 as it would be
> on the "lowfer" frequencies and one could say this mode really isn't about
> that anyway. Id be interested in that hams views on band use for this
> since 160 is a well used band.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's interesting, and brings to mind a question I've been wondering
> about
> > for low-data-rate weak signal modes such as JT65, JT9 (which take 60
> > seconds to send a CQ), and QRSS (24 hours?!).
> >
> > In the real world on 160, what would any of these modes really gain for
> an
> > operator already skilled in CW?
> >
> > From reading posts about JT9 and JT65 on 160, the distance gain over
> > ordinary CW is really nothing to write home about. Does anyone have any
> > real-word experiences that say otherwise?
> >
> > 73, Mike
> > www.w0btu.com
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee K7TJR <k7tjr@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ... the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found. ... a ham running QRSS
> >> where it takes 24 hours to send a CQ. HuH?
> >>
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|