Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT8\s+on\s+2m\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT8\s+on\s+2m\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Nick Pick <nicolasgagnon@hotmail.fr>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:04:27 +0000; Hi everyone, just wondering wich frequencies should we use for FT8 on 2m? CQ WW VHF is coming and FT8 could be useful when USB voice just don't make it (in last ARRL June VHF, happen a few time when; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00030.html (6,728 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Dana <ve3ds@acanac.net>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:20:04 -0400; 144.133? or 144.144? dana ve3ds Hi everyone, just wondering wich frequencies should we use for FT8 on 2m? CQ WW VHF is coming and FT8 could be useful when USB voice just don't make it (in last ARRL J; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00034.html (7,348 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: k7xcnv1 <k7xcnv1@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:16:13 -0700; It has to be above 144.100 by law. Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android device-- Original message --From: Nick Pick <nicolasgagnon@hotmail.fr> Date: 7/12/2017 07:04 (GMT-08:00) To: vhfcontesting@cont; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00035.html (7,679 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Nick Pick <nicolasgagnon@hotmail.fr>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:56:41 +0000; Good idea Jerry, 144.179 seem a good place! And It's more a gentlement agreement than a law, at least in Canada... Jeff: difficult to do a sked, I'm finishing my work week saturday morning at 7am but; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00036.html (9,041 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: K7XC Tim Marek <k7xcnv1@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:04:46 +0000; Take a moment to look at the IARU Region 2 band plan proposal at: https://wsjtx.net/home/proposed_band_plan.html He makes some valid points not to mention his website is a wonderful resource of VHF+; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00037.html (9,383 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:12:28 -0500; As you're probably aware, Americans assume American law is law everywhere. Our 47 CFR 97.305 does limit non-CW emission types to 144.1 - 148 MHz ... but that only applies to FCC-licensed amateurs. I; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00038.html (8,236 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: "Ron Klimas WZ1V" <wz1v@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:55:18 -0400; Please reconsider, that is too close to the SSB part of the band. I would think 144.160 or lower would be more appropriate. -73 Ron WZ1V VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http:/; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00039.html (10,483 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Dana <ve3ds@acanac.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:04:52 -0400; As mentioned Its NOT BY LAW in Canada..eh..We can operate SSB on 144.010 if we want to. In Canada we are bandwidth restricted ONLY and the RAC Bandplan is essentially the genltlemans agreement to kee; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00040.html (10,003 bytes)
9. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:59:17 -1000; Thanks for the link. Re operating above 144.300 I would want to stay well clear of the usual APRS frequency (144.39 ?). I'm not convinced having a weak signal mode using SSB radios near a FM based pa; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00041.html (11,749 bytes)
10. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Dana <ve3ds@acanac.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:32:45 -0400; Yes, looking at APRS on a SpecA 390 is pretty noisy We also have pagers below 144 as well so 144.1 - 144.150 isnt a bad idea, plus avoiding crowding the typical SSB frequencies used here in the east; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00042.html (12,630 bytes)
11. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Dana <ve3ds@acanac.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:52:38 -0400; Marshall makes a valid point re EME - obviously a need is there for isolation from strong terrestrial signals. So the possible idea would then be 144.150 -144.170 being available for FT8 it would be; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00043.html (15,328 bytes)
12. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:26:10 -1000; To expand upon my prior off list comment it would be nice to nail down the boundary between digi mode EME and other digi mode operations on 144 MHz. Some operators seemed to think 144.144 was a FSK44; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00044.html (16,914 bytes)
13. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: K7XC Tim Marek <k7xcnv1@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:10:45 +0000; I would suggest we don't place a terrestrial Digital signal in the Middle of traditionally a CW EME passband. What about above .300 like around 144.313? Well below any FM activity on the band plan. 7; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00045.html (8,792 bytes)
14. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m (score: 1): Author: Dana <ve3ds@acanac.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:18:10 -0400; Tim, yes worth looking into.. Before we consider that, we should check local activity up there & evernyone bring back that information touch base with your local coordination body as well For example; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2017-07/msg00047.html (9,738 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]