Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+40M\s+FT4\s+Frequency\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:57:41 -0700
7047 has been chosen, and many fans of WSJT modes have observed that it's likely to start a war. That range is widely used by W1AW, state QSO parties, QRP and QRS operation, county hunters, most CW c
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00014.html (7,371 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 06:49:12 -0600
Your post should have been titled, "What you can hear can hurt you."  :-) Barry W2UP On 8/5/2019 1:57 AM, Jim Brown wrote: 7047 has been chosen, and many fans of WSJT modes have observed that it's li
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00015.html (7,893 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: donovanf@starpower.net
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:34:49 -0400 (EDT)
I fully support K9YC's recommendation that ARRL members contact their directors so that they become aware of the need to quickly act force a change in the unfortunate choice of 7047.5 kHz for routine
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00016.html (8,806 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 16:44:51 -0400
Why not move all digital communications (including FT8/FT4) above 7100 ? Here is the FCC frequency allocation for the lower part of 40 meters the US: 7.025-7.125 MHz : CW, RTTY/Data The same applies
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00017.html (10,966 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
The ARRL Bandplan on the website shows: 7.040 RTTY/Data DX 7.080-7.125 RTTY/Data I don't know where the 7047 kHz frequency came from, but that choice kind of surprised me when I first loaded FT8/FT4
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00018.html (11,837 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 17:56:32 -0400
So I actually did bring this up and I will see if I can remind those involved in band planning (Committee) to see what they recommend. I also did ask Joe Carcia (W1AW station manager) for his thought
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00019.html (11,209 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: donovanf@starpower.net
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 18:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
Hello Ria, Lets hope that the band planning committee comes up with some good ideas. We're just experiencing the leading edge of the growth of digital communications on our ham bands and its importan
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00020.html (10,420 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: K8MR via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 23:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
Who declared 7047 as the FT4 frequency? Are they being approached to change that decision? 73  -  Jim   K8MR --Original Message-- From: donovanf <donovanf@starpower.net> To: cq-contest <cq-contest@co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00021.html (11,988 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: "Jamie WW3S" <ww3s@zoominternet.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 23:55:54 +0000
Not sure what the ARRL directors can do, other than suggest a different freq (I think above 7.100 would be great). I think the software developers, users, and contest organizers would be the ones to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00022.html (10,765 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Brennan Price via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:57:34 -0400
A few observations, now that I'm sure I have plain text turned on and having watched today's discussion with interest: 1) Above 7100 is hard because of how the narrower 40 meter band is used in ITU R
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00023.html (13,490 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: cosson-dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 07:30:06 +0200
Hi Jeff, Maybe because there are some other countries than USA in the world... (with diferents band plan) 73 de Dimitri F4DSK  Here is the FCC frequency allocation for the lower part of 40 meters the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00024.html (12,979 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Hans Brakob <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 03:03:59 +0000
I think that IARU Region 1 bandplan only allows digimodes from 7040-7060. Yes, I know that FT8 is a camels nose in the tent at 7074, but they are pushing back on FT4. Just my understanding, so for wh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00025.html (13,368 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 02:29:31 +0000
I think the decision was made by the developers. Keep in mind that finding a frequency on 40m is challenged because band plans, and available frequencies, are so different around the world. The FT8 w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00026.html (9,363 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:34:03 +0000 (UTC)
With all due respect, why is this being blamed on the ARRL? If Im not mistaken, the choice in frequency was made by the developers, not the League. 73, ron W3WN A few observations, now that I'm sure
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00027.html (13,365 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: john@kk9a.com
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:42:21 -0500
What does 7.040 RTTY/Data DX mean? Is this a single channel? FWIW I have made a number of DX RTTY QSOs slightly above 7.040, perhaps even on the new 7.0475 FT4 frequency. That segment of 40m is quite
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00029.html (9,193 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Jim Rhodes <jim@rhodesend.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:19:24 -0500
Some countries only have part of what we do for 40, so what we in the US use as an RTTY subband is considered a phone subband for them, by convention or rule. If you want to work the DX you have to w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00035.html (10,113 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency (score: 1)
Author: Brennan Price via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:15:24 -0400
No respect is necessarily due, and no blame assigned to ARRL on this particular action of others. That said, ARRL and IARU are uniquely situated to do HF band planning, and this work used to be routi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-08/msg00046.html (15,986 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu