Author: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC)
I enjoy contests but... This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW activity or attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities. Why is it reasonable or even acc
Hi Roger, I don't post here very much. I'm a casual op on 160 (no antenna at present). The problem I experience isn't a lack of "band plans" - aka gentlemen's agreements. The problem for me is there
Roger - many "locals" have told me their 160M antenna system only tunes the CW section and they cannot even go above 1840 their antenna is so narrow banded. Even though I only spend a few hours on 16
Author: Kevin Stover <kevin.stover@mediacombb.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:54:55 -0600
Because the FCC says you can run any mode anywhere in the band just like you can run CW anywhere on any HF band. That's not to say some folks may be less than happy, but it's legal. The "DX Window" h
Roger, Pretty straightforward. Narrow Bandwidth antennas + wideband modes (like SSB) = crowding in the 1800-1850 region. (and no (or very little) room for CW ops.) I was not on this weekend *(don't p
CW ops have ALWAYS had to bend over backwards during SSB contests. The problem this year, as articulated in VE3ZI's post, is that there are/were several DXpeditions out this weekend with operations o
Author: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:39:16 +0000 (UTC)
I have received replies both on the reflector and privately. Several suggest that the problem is that "160m antennas are narrow band". With respect, that is an excuse not a reason. It is perfectly po
problem this year, as articulated in VE3ZI's post, is that there are/were several DXpeditions out this weekend with operations on 160M that should have been protected from QRM. << I would like to sa
I think there is a few things that need to also be taken into account. A bandplan is designed for *normal* band loading. Clearly, when there is a contest on, we are NOT dealing with normal band loadi
Change your complaint to ARRL so it says SSB QRM to digital QSOs and they'll petition the FCC to give you a subband. Rob K5UJ _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com
Author: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:01:56 +0000 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Tom. The NA band plan has phone at above 1840kHz. My proposal is for phone above 1817kHz (and perhaps below 1810kHz) which seems to me to accept that this is not normal ba
Hi Roger Thanks for making me take a second look. For some reason, I thought ARRL had a 160 phone contest - they do not. My mistake. As it turns out - there is only ONE SSB contest - the CQ 160 SSB t
The ET7L operation is not a normal dxpedition. The guys are in ET land working. They have limited time to operate during their nights on 160M because of their work sked. Thus, they are focusing durin
Dont forget in R1 there are still countries which have only 1810-1850. As long as we dont get the full band it will be a discussion point every time. I do listen a lot on 160m. I know only of 2 conte
Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL: 160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz) 1.800 - 2.000 CW 1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes 1.810 CW QRP 1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
Author: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:54:34 +0000 (UTC)
Tom Perhaps you are correct in suggesting that only one SSB contest in the whole year impacts significantly on 160m CW activity. Therefore, for all contests and QSO parties other than CQ 160 SSB, the
But Roger, unless I have missed something, in regards to your PS, do not most of the rarer DXpeditions on 160 work split? I agree the volume of callers should keep the calling channel clear, but it's
That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different ITU regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments. I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these is
Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder! The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various count
So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very strong view, as follows. I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'leak' downwards into the CW exclusive part of the band