Danny, I typically find the RTTY stations about 10 Khz higher than the PSK31 stations. This leaves a big hole in between. Maybe this is just the way propagation works in the northern midwest U.S.?
On 20 meters, which is typically the main digital band, I will find PSK31 stations beginning at 14.070 and usually all of them will be within a voice passband width. The RTTY stations seem to be around 14.080 and up. I don't normally use any of the frequencies above 14.090 because there is usually enough space in between. It is very rare to find any digital stations on 160 meters but the band plan is a bit odd with placing them at the bottom 10 kHz of the band. As you know, I want to have places on the bands that allow for voice/data/image to all be used as the operators desire. Theoretically 160 meters is the only lower band that permits this to happen. Unfortunately, I now find out that you can be cited by the FCC if you do this. The ARRL bandplan has a pseudo force of law behind it. It would also be out of compliance here in the U.S. with operating a digital mode outside the 1800 to 1810 bandplan such as above 1840 as you suggest. Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we operated voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band? 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: >Rick I think that you are pretty much looking at RTTY freqs, which usually >are 2 or 3 KC above the PSK signals, and upward from there. This suggest >calling freq for other digital modes, therefore should be a bit above or >below the combination package of PSK/RTTY so as to get them out of each >others way. As to giving your VFO (dial) freq, that is not the normal way >PSK is spotted, nor any other mode dependant on a "waterfall". As you say, >everyone is a bit different as to where their waterfall "pointer" lies on a >digital signal. It is much better to just spot the actual freq where the >audio signal comes out on the waterfall. I.E. 14.0731. No matter who >clicks on a spot like that, their "trace" comes out on the waterfall as that >freq. We dont care where each others dial freq is - but the location of the >signal. In your case its dial plus 1500 - In mine its dial plus 1000, >other will have similar setting according to where their sound card best >passes a signal (sweet spot), and there is no qestion where the transmitting >signal is found. Double click a spot, and bang- your reciever/transmitter >freqs are set properly, and no one has to look around to see where in the >world the spotter found it. > >I am a bit perplexed about 160 meters. It is such a wide band, with so few >signals per KHZ, I wonder why anyone wants to send SSB, for instance, down >in the low part. We should have sub bands down there, even more than the >other bands, but dont. Why anyone would want to send SSB on top of ongoing >CW signals is beyond me, but they do it all the time there. Thus, I think >your suggestion for PSK at 1.808 or even lower is much too low for that >activity. How about bringing it up to 1.850 and have cw below that and SSB >above it? If not - why not? Most all of us have antenna tuners these days, >and we dont run much power on PSK anyway, so it hasnt much to do with where >our antennas are "cut". I could certainly understand the mix-mash mess on >160 back when radio location signals abounded on the band, and hams in >specific areas of the states/world were forbidden to operated in portions >near those signals. That is no longer the case and we can pretty much >transmit wherever we want on that band. We just need some gentlemens >agreement (I.E. subbands) to protect signals from inteference from different >modes. > > >
