Buddy: I agree .174 is a far better choice than .500
and no need to go below .100 on those bands.
What I'd like to see moved is 144.174 -
way to close to the center of SSB-CW terrestrial work.
But where to move it to is the big question.
-73 Ron WZ1V
----- Original Message -----
From: Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
> A few comments:
50.313 and 144.174 are pretty well established frequencies - they are already
programmed into the software.
Apparently some people agreed on 222.080. I do not know about elsewhere, but
around here, there always seem to be concerns about interfering with EME
activity, when you operate below the call frequencies. So, we thought that
picking frequencies above the call frequency would be better
I looked at 432.500. I thought some people might have antenna BW problems, that
high in the band. Hence, we picked 432.174.
The concrete has not set, yet. Any other thoughts?
Buddy WB4OMG
EL 98
-----Original Message-----
From: barry <barry@k7bwh.com>
To: vhfcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Cc: 'Buddy Morgan' <beamar@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 3:41 pm
Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
For what it's worth, the Pacific Northwest has generally agreed on these FT8
frequencies after discussion at our last conference:
50.313
144.174
222.080
432.500
1296.074
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|