I agree. All this debate is typical of a solution in search of a problem --
including the idea of moving the calling frequency up-band from 50125 (the
boundary between the DX window and the rest of the band). Does it "make
sense" to have the national calling frequency on the edge of the DX window?
No, probably not... But is it actually a problem? I've been entirely focused
on 6 meters for 7 years now, and I submit it is NOT a problem in any way I
can discern. In fact, I think it works very well where it is. I think having
it on the edge of the DX window makes it somewhat less likely for people to
use it as a run frequency during contests (though inevitably some people
still do that).
The DX window does not need to be any bigger than it is. I assume more
signals can be heard there during an EU opening from the east coast than
what I hear from New Mexico, but I doubt there is excessive crowding going
on. Same with the de facto CW sub-band (50080 to 50100). CW takes up almost
zero bandwidth, if you have a decent down-conversion receiver with narrow
1st IF filters, like a K3.
If and when we get to the point where 6 meter activity doubles or triples
from where it is today (wouldn't that be great!), or if we actually get F2
this solar cycle (looks doubtful based on current predictions), maybe the
world as a whole ought to revisit the 6m band plan in a more formal way. But
for now, even with this very good Es season now under way, I just don't see
a problem here.
Bill W5WVO
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Crownhaven" <crownhaven@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:59 AM
To: "Tom Kramer" <tkramer@azci.net>
Cc: "Chuck Carpenter" <w5usj@9plus.net>; "David All" <n3xudfm19@gmail.com>;
"vhf" <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; "vhf contesting"
<vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHF] Beacon Subbands and CW
> This activity is pretty unusual. Getting everyone to change would be a
> nightmare. Let Darwin's Law take its course.
>
> Steve, N4JQQ, EM55
>
> On 6/20/2010 11:16 AM, Tom Kramer wrote:
>> IMHO, I think it is time ARRL and/or others take a stand and strongly
>> recommend a new "calling frequency" maybe 50.175 or .200 as some have
>> suggested. That in turn can widen out the DX window as well. Wait, do
>> "donkeys fly?", ain't gonna happen
>> NQ7R
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Carpenter" <w5usj@9plus.net>
>> To: "David All" <n3xudfm19@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "vhf" <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; "vhf contesting"
>> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:22 AM
>> Subject: [VHF] Beacon Subbands and CW
>>
>>
>>> Seems that some folks new to the 6 meter band are not aware of the
>>> beacon
>>> subbands. ARRL does not show the international beacon subband in their
>>> published band plan.
>>>
>>> International beacons are from 50.0 to 50.060
>>>
>>> US beacons are from 50.060 to 50.080
>>>
>>> The CW band is from 50.080 to 50.10
>>>
>>> Although it's legal to operate CW anyplace in the band, the beacon
>>> subbands
>>> should be avoided for QSOs. You could mess up an important propagation
>>> beacon...8^)
>>>
>>> DX window is from 50.1 to 50.125 and etc.
>>> ------
>>> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>> ------
>> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
>> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
>> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
> ------
> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|