In my experience in South West VE7 Land and the PNW during contests SSB / CW
activity on 144 MHz generally seems to go up from 144.200 in 10 KHz steps.
>From a South West VE7Land / PNW perspective 144.174 seems about as good as
>anything for FT8 on 144 MHz. It seems nicely spaced between the MSK144
>calling frequency at 144.150 and the SSB/CW calling frequency at 144.200
I realize in an area where significant SSB/CW activity occurs below 144.200,
144.174 might not be a good choice for FT8.
73
Mark S
VE7AFZ
mark@alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> I agree about 144.174. But, it is in use. It is in the software. Could be
> hard to change. But, when you start going lower in the band, people complain
> about interfering with EME. You could go higher. Little activity above
> 144.230, even during major tropo openings and contests. I dunno...
>
> Buddy WB4OMG
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Klimas WZ1V <wz1v@sbcglobal.net>
> To: Buddy Morgan <beamar@aol.com>
> Cc: vhfcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 7:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|