>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I gather
>a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things?
Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL:
160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz)
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810
Tom
Perhaps you are correct in suggesting that only one SSB contest in the whole
year impacts significantly on 160m CW activity. Therefore, for all contests and
QSO parties other than CQ 160 SSB, the competitors will not be affected at all
if the organisers prohibit SSB operation below 1820 kHz
But Roger, unless I have missed something, in regards to your PS, do not
most of the rarer DXpeditions on 160 work split?
I agree the volume of callers should keep the calling channel clear, but
it's also necessary to hear the DX! So wouldn't some guard channel be very
helpful in those situati
That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different ITU
regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments.
I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues.
We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2 Mhz
160 meter ba
Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder!
The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen
http://www.iaru
So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very
strong view, as follows.
I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'leak' downwards into the
CW exclusive part of the band during a contest. I would even say take
over two thirds of the CW only segment and come down
Don,
You efforts are appreciated. I can understand the hurdles involved.
Mike N2MS
- Original Message -
From: Don Beattie
To: mstang...@comcast.net, 'James Rodenkirch'
Cc: 'Top Band Contesting'
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 16:27:06 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in ste
Hi Don
Yes I agree, they usually do. In contests some do and some don't - you know
that way better than me. I think that the distinction is that everybody is on
the same mode. So that when a potential CQer says 'QRL?' there are a few ms
available to say yes. With mixed modes that is not pos
Appreciate the reminder re Region 2, Mike.but..will a "common plan"
amongst all IARU regions, if not adhered to by participants (evidenced here in
Region 2), be "worth the effort" to bring about???
Again, I am a newbie to 160 AND a QRP operator so DXCC entities, to me, mean
anything wes
Six and Two Meters have restricted 100 kHz CW bands at the low end. Both
bands cover 4 MHz. I doubt either band has ever had the user density that
160 meters has exhibited at any point in history.
It seems odd to me that 160 meters shouldn't be allowed an exclusive FCC CW
assignment for at le
I’m impressed that you could hear the US SSB stations. I have never heard NZ on
160.
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Greg - ZL3IX wrote:
>
> So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very strong
> view, as follows.
>
> I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'lea
On Tue,3/1/2016 10:03 AM, Pete Bertini wrote:
It seems odd to me that 160 meters shouldn't be allowed an exclusive
FCC CW assignment for at least 20 to 50 kHz on the bottom edge?
Have you slept through the many emails in this thread noting that many
hams in different parts of the world have v
Oh, boo hoo. So reduce the CW band to 10 kHz.
Geeez.
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Brown"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Fw: Am I the only one in step?
On Tue,3/1/2016 10:03 AM, Pete Bertini wrote:
It seems odd to me that 160 meters shouldn't
James,
Let's assume region 1 and 3 allow high power SSB operation above 1.850 Mhz and
CQ "recommends" that operators say above 1.850 Mhz and away from the 1.910 QRP
or 1.995-2.000 experimental segments. Will contesters follow that
recommendation? Probably not.
I base my conclusion on experienc
Hi Don,
I was surprised to see some very active countries cannot operate
above 1850 kHz at all; for example:
9K CT F LZ SV TA TF ZS
Severe power restrictions above 1850 are very common as are
restrictions on SSB operation below 1840.
73
Frank
W3LPL
- Original Message ---
It is common practice in the CQ WW 160M Contest for CQing on the NA and EU
side to occur in the 1810 - 1825 range. I was doing so twice in the contest
last weekend. It was pretty much every 3khz CQing in the range both Friday
and Saturday nights including NA and EU CQing stations. For the last 5
A few more comments seem necessary:
I do of course agree strongly with Greg ZL3IX. The only reason I am arguing for
a smaller CW segment is that there is very strong entrenched opposition from
the contesting community to any change whatsoever, and I am trying to be more
than reasonable.
Mike
Hi Ed,
Despite your experience, Europe can't call you on 1811 LSB either...
Operators in those European countries with SSB priveleges
below 1840 can only call you on a suppressed carrier frequency
of about 1813 otherwise they're transmitting significant energy
outside their 160 meter ham b
On Tue,3/1/2016 2:01 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:
OK, so there is no reason at all from a contester's perspective why all the
contests and QSO parties that have low 160m usage should not have SSB
restricted to 1820 and above, and I would appreciate your help in achieving
this.
My que
Yo,
Have we beat this poor horse to death yet??? It's all interesting, but I think
we're starting to go over ground already covered. Plus, somehow, we've dragged
VHF freqs into the discussion.
(Let the flames begin, so to speak)
K9WN Jake
_
Topband Reflector Archives - h
Hi,
I am resurrecting an aging, 'Rip VanWinkle" radio that includes 160
meters. I was finally ready to apply power for a first test and all of
those naughty SSB contesters on 160 meters provided me with a lot of
test "fodder" on the receive side. I wish to thank all of the SSB
contesters for
Hi,
Need some ideas from your side...
I am trying to find a good solution for my 160/80m antenna.
I am thinking about some kind of Inv L with an 80m trap as a radiator for both
bands.
But, what about the counterpoise...Unfortunately in my small city lot I can´t
install radials and I can´t get
Douglas,
You certainly can use the galvanized roof as a ground screen. It might be
a good idea to measure resistance between sheets to get an idea of how well
they're all tied together electrically. If they're not, you might see some
odd shifts in VSWR when you send RF through it. Another poten
On Tue,3/1/2016 7:29 PM, Brad Rehm wrote:
You certainly can use the galvanized roof as a ground screen.
Certainly can is FAR too optimistic a statement. Poor connections
between segments of the roof will do more than cause SWR shifts, they
will create intermod, which could make you unpopular
I've had two verticals on galvanized metal roofs. An 80m top loaded 40'
3" irrigation pipe on a two pitch steep barn roof about 30 x 60' and a
full size 1/4wl 40m on a essentially flat roof shed 26 x 26'. The 80m
worked super even though the roof was in bad shape. I did add a number
of sheet
25 matches
Mail list logo
