that´s what a ham in Colombia told me, not a good translation but:
*I told you that that harmonica is completely ruining our operation in FT8
since it completely erases any signal in a bandwidth of up to 20 kc. We
have denounced the fact to the Colombian authorities that monitor the
matter, witho
Bandplans are not the same in every country so moving to suit one will cause
disruption for others. It's been proven time and time again that it is best to
let the masses figure it out, based upon their individual needs. Dictating a
frequency for one group will most like be unsatisfactory for ot
I wasn't clear. I meant BCB filters at their receivers would not help those
stations being bothered by the second harmonic.
K7CW
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, 8:42:15 PM UTC, Paul Kiesel via Topband
wrote:
Unless I lost track of the conversation, we are talking about a station in
Colomb
Unless I lost track of the conversation, we are talking about a station in
Colombia whose second harmonic is interfering with reception on 1840 in
Uruguay. A BCB filter would likely not help the stations being bothered by this
second harmonic.
K7CW
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, 7:37:56 PM UTC
I'd say move higher, say 1.860 or wherever...
But I can see that having an antenna resonate for the lower CW area and a
higher FT8 frequency could be difficult.
Ray,
N6VR/W7YA
On Tue, May 21, 2019, 10:20 AM Paul Kiesel via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:
> I think 1840 works for most.
I think 1840 works for most. Moving the FT8 frequency because of one second
harmonic of a broadcast signal is not called for. Getting the broadcast station
to clean up its signal is. There are other activities on 160 that would have to
change frequency if the FT8 frequency were to change. There
1844 would be a great solution for FT-8. Now we have to convince the WSJTX
people to put 1844 in their dropdown menu we they do the next release.
They have 1838 for JT-65 which few ever use today and that could be another
option for FT-8.
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:50 AM cqtestk4xs--- via Topband
Hello Bruce
is not in my country, this BC is from Colombia 8HK), but i contacted some
friend in HK and he complain in the HK radio office
73,
Jorge
El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 12:20, FZ Bruce () escribió:
> In the past we have chased second harmonic interference problems on 1820
> KHZ.
> Even
OMG
73, Mirko, S57AD
V V tor., 21. maj 2019 ob 17:00 je oseba Peter Sundberg
napisala:
> As most FT8 folks (like slaves) follow the K1JT
> suggested frequencies per band their radio will
> automatically QSY to the preprogrammed frequency.
> Some even think that they can't QSY and are
> demandin
In the past we have chased second harmonic interference problems on
1820 KHZ.Eventually broadcasters have cleared problems. It's in the
best interest of everyone to keep the band clear as possible.
Jorge, you may eventually need to contact your government licensing
office.
73,Bruce, k1fz
As most FT8 folks (like slaves) follow the K1JT
suggested frequencies per band their radio will
automatically QSY to the preprogrammed frequency.
Some even think that they can't QSY and are
demanding the software developer to add other frequencies to the software...
OMG.
73
Peter SM2CEW
A
Jorge. I agree the harmonics are not acceptable. But between fishing buoys
and other birdie type QRN, moving around to find a clear frequency is not new
to 160M, nor ham radio in general. Its part of what we do. As soon as
something channelizes – its very limited quickly.
Ed N1UR
Fr
I don't have a dog in the fight but why not move to 1843 or 1844. Is 1840
sacrosanct?
Bill KH7XS
-Original Message-
From: Jorge Diez - CX6VM
To: Edward Sawyer
Cc: GEORGE WALLNER ; TopBand List
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2019 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: AM interference on 1840
Ed
FT8 can
Ed
FT8 can move, but 1840 still is useless to do CW, so is not a FT8 problem
George said the two big problems, hope this not increase with harmonics
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 8:52, Edward Sawyer ()
escribió:
> I agree with the 2 messages. But there is a 3rd. The inabil
I would think that FT8 is a mode uniquely able to operate through such
interference.
Chuck W5PR
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 6:52 AM Edward Sawyer
wrote:
> I agree with the 2 messages. But there is a 3rd. The inability for the
> FT8 crowd to QSY around some interference. Interference is a fact of
I agree with the 2 messages. But there is a 3rd. The inability for the FT8
crowd to QSY around some interference. Interference is a fact of life. And we
have QSY’s around it (even as it is being worked) for a century.
Ed N1UR
From: GEORGE WALLNER [mailto:aa...@atlanticbb.net]
Sent:
There are two messages in this topic: One is the interference from this
particular BC station. Not a crisis, not yet. Two is a warning: Newly
installed solid-state AM broadcast amplifiers in poorly regulated regions,
over time, will have the potential to fill the entire 160 meter band with
harm
While the harmonic interference is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with,
isn't this only "a crisis" because of the simplistic FT8 solution of
bunching everyone up on a small channel? It reminds me of the old CB days
when something would happen on a certain channel but no one would move
because
18 matches
Mail list logo
