The 160 m Band Plan was only fairly recently formalised in Australia, a
decade or so ago.
We have 1800 - 1875 kHz, with the CW sub-band 1810 - 1840 kHz.
The digital narrow band modes seem to have established themselves on 1838
here with no great problems, but there are few users of the band
On 11/29/2017 8:31 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
Even narrower than typical CW. Yet we have CW signals interfering
with FT8 users self-perceived window, when they are 2kc away from
each other.
As long as the CW operator does not decide to transmit "zero beat"
with an FT8 signal, there should be no
Thing is, FT8 is by transmitted signal measurement, a narrow band mode just
like CW.
Even narrower than typical CW. Yet we have CW signals interfering with FT8
users self-perceived window, when they are 2kc away from each other.
So a regulation by transmitted signal bandwidth does not seem to
1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW
sub-band on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands
like 80/40/20/15/10.
W8JI and I (then AD8I) also filed petitions with the FCC to create
a CW (narrow band as on all of the HF bands) sub band between 1800
and
Hi Jeff
Agree with most of your comments . . .
However - if there was a 160m CW sub-band, it might be a RULE in the USA . .
. but it wouldn't apply elsewhere . . .
So what would be the point?! I think 160m works pretty well as it is. (and
compared to all the other bands, it's still the most
Jeff,
Many thanks or the well explained history of the 160M band plan. This is
good info for relatively newcomers to the band like me.
Rich K7ZV
On Wed, November 29, 2017 12:38 pm, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:
> Hi All
>
>
>
> This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember
Hi All
This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember the
origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on
Topband.
A number of us (myself included) were on the 160M ARRL BANDPLANNING COMMITTEE
some years ago and there were several schools of
