I have been informed that the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found.
I have been told it was a ham running QRSS where it takes 24 hours to
send a CQ. HuH?
I do not know the exact location or the party involved. Maybe the
occasional 100Hz shift
was an indicator. RTTY always required
I think the rules need changed to require an ID.
- Original Message -
From: Lee K7TJR k7...@msn.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM
Subject: Topband: 1810.8 carrier found.
I have been informed that the carrier on 1810.8 KHz has been found.
I
I would just opine this is a colossal waste of spectrum - not in terms of
bandwidth per se but the inefficiency and low information transfer rate.
Moreover propagation testing is really not an issue on 160 as it would be on
the lowfer frequencies and one could say this mode really isn't about
Mike,
I've been a CW op for just about 50 years. Couple months ago I started messing
around with WSJT-X and it's JT65 and JT9 protocols. I run an Elecraft KX3 and
my antenna is an 88-foot long doublet, 45 feet up, fed with about 110 feet of
450 ohm ladder line. I have tried running QRP power
I would say that the band is big enough for all of us. We just need some
coordination so we can get along. There are some open issues on 160 that
have not been totally resolved (like the activity on 1838 kHz for
example). I guess my first comment would be to try to move this out of the
15 kHz
There was a thread about this very subject not long ago. When I also
mentioned below 1810, I was quickly informed by several here that it's
just 'not going to' or 'can't' happen because of --among other things-- the
lack of 1800-1810 in one region.
BTW, I think this is the last day to comment on
Thank you, Jim!
That's kind of what I thought, from just monitoring 1838 wsjt-x but
sometimes flipping between four directions on the Beverages. Mostly calling
CQ, but some QSOs.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your experience.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:38
On 3/31/2014 1:38 PM, Jim Bennett wrote:
I've found that I get moderate success when running 30-40 watts on
those two low power modes.
Correction - JT65 and JT9 are weak signal modes - not necessarily
low power modes. Their primary genesis is from the EME (moon-
bounce) world where
Pretty anticlimatic when the ID would take 5 seconds and the QRSS QSO
takes 24 hours.
I think the rules need changed to require an ID.
- Original Message -
From: Lee K7TJR k7...@msn.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM
Subject: Topband: 1810.8
As I've gotten older being a musician, performing for 50 years now,
my ears are not so good. I really appreciate the Spot function on
my K3 for me... I find hitting that button brings me to zero
perfectly well and between that the P3 (LP-Pan would be as good), I
manage to pretty well get it
You're being sarcastic, right? :-)
Since when did the FCC rules not require us to ID every 10 minutes,
regardless of the mode?
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote:
I think the rules need changed to require an ID.
_
Topband
Guess I did not Mention Dave's call is W0FLS
Lee K7TJR
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
OOPs Wrong Reflector SRI Guys
Lee K7TJR
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Thanks to all who provided info and suggestions.
It appears that a practical solution to be able to use old Phillystran
might be to use wire rope saddle clamps at the right quantity and
tightening torque. So, based on posts, I am experimenting with 4
clamps with nut tightening torques (5/8
Your points are well taken, and I agree. However, on HF, when the vast majority
of ops simply do the TX=RX thing, if you happen to be the guy running 5 watts
and there are a lot of stations on the band, your chances of being answered
diminish greatly. If there aren't many stations on, you have
Jim Bennett w6...@mac.com wrote:
Anyway, to answer your question - no, I most certainly have NOT seen any
distance gain (on HF) by using the JT-modes as compared to CW.
From my experience, I have seen gains, but the rarity of the JT mode makes
the gain appear to be less. I feel I need to be
Jim Bennett w6...@mac.com wrote:
Your points are well taken, and I agree. However, on HF, when the vast
majority of ops simply do the TX=RX thing, if you happen to be the guy
running 5 watts and there are a lot of stations on the band, your chances
of being answered diminish greatly. If there
Tree t...@kkn.net wrote:
I would say that the band is big enough for all of us. We just need some
coordination so we can get along. There are some open issues on 160 that
have not been totally resolved (like the activity on 1838 kHz for
example). I guess my first comment would be to try to
18 matches
Mail list logo
