VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity

To: VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity
From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:33:27 -0500
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Yes, very true. And in this area at least (and I'm sure others too) the
activity in contests goes down to at least 144.175. If you go very much
below that you start to encroach on the EME'ers. I myself don't use any
digital modes in contests. I generally operate Singe Op (QRP) Portable and
don't take a computer with me. I log on paper.

73, Zack W9SZ


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Rick R <rick1ds@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The suggested frequencies for 2m "somewhere between 144.105 and 144.145"
> would infringe on the 2m EME JT65 activity.
>
> Rick, K1DS
>
> ________________________________
> From: newsvhf-bounces@mailman.qth.net <newsvhf-bounces@mailman.qth.net>
> on behalf of map92map@gmail.com <map92map@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:17 PM
> To: stanka1ze--- via NEWSVHF; wz1v@sbcglobal.net
> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com; vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity
>
> How about move it somewhere between 144.105 and 144.145.  Mark k1map
> Sent from my LG G5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> ------ Original message------From: stanka1ze--- via NEWSVHFDate: Thu, Jul
> 12, 2018 1:11 PMTo: wz1v@sbcglobal.net;newsvhf@mailman.qth.net;Cc:
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com;vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu;Subject:Re: [NEWSVHF]
> 144.174 FT8 activity
>  Ron, sounds good to me but what does the rest of the country think? Stan
> KA1ZE/3
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Klimas WZ1V
> To: newsvhf
> Cc: vhfcontesting ; vhf
> Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 12:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity
>
> I now have FT8 capability HF through 432.
> It's my least preferred mode.
> IMO it's a "necessary evil" to have or be left out.
> If you operate 6M you know what I mean.
> One thing I'd really like to change is 144.174.
> Who was responsible for choosing that ?
> Way too close to the SSB-CW part of the band.
> Disputes already started with a long-time 144.175 SSB Net.
> I'd like to start a campaign to move it to 144.165.
> That's where it should have been to start with.
> Who else agrees? Thoughts?
> -73 Ron WZ1V
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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