Thank you. I forgot that in Region 1 (essentially Europe, Asia, & Africa), 160m starts at 1810.
Here's a couple of thoughts for discussion: - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South America-- starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band plans? Is digital popular in other places? - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in addition to-- below 1810? As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant bandwidth advantages of JT9 vs. JT65: "JT65 was designed for EME ... in contrast, JT9 is optimized for HF and lower frequencies. JT9 is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65A while using less than 10% of the bandwidth. ... A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals. As many as 100 JT9 signals can fit into the same space, without overlap." --From http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow >> band mode such as the superior JT9 mode. >> > > Unfortunately, "below 1810" is never going to fly because of the lack of > access below 1810 in many countries. Further, JT65 although wider than JT9 > is certainly less than 200 Hz and should not be a concern to users of other > narrow bandwidth modes. ... > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
