[CQ-Contest] 40 meter operating practices
w9sz at prairienet.org
Mon Nov 3 17:40:32 EST 1997
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Doug Smith wrote:
> AA4LR wrote:
> >Perhaps the solution is simply to permit US amatuers to operate SSB in
> >some portion of the 7.000-7.100 range. Seems like most all of our Region
> >2 breathren can, so why not?
> And write off CW contesting on 40! Seriously, any part of this spectrum we
> open to U.S. SSB will promptly become chock full of regular activity.
> Activity that won't go away just because CW SS or CW WW are in progress.
> (and incidentially, activity that'll push the data mode signals even lower
> in the band) Any part of this range we open to SSB operation is lost to CW.
> 40m is a problem. It simply isn't wide enough; there is no real solution
> except a wider exclusive-amateur band. (which luckily I do think we stand a
> chance of getting)
> I suppose in the short term, there could be "contest judges" -- trusted
> operators appointed by the WW sponsors who'd agree not to operate in a given
> year's WW, and instead listen only and report violations of contest and
> national regulations to the sponsors. Single violations could result in
> score reductions, and multiple violations in possible disqualification. I
> know there are some operators who don't particularly care to operate
> seriously in SSB tests & might be willing to serve in this capacity -- it
> might be somewhat harder to find CW judges<g>..
> 73 Doug
I remember seeing somewhere that there is a possibility at the next WARC
of getting some more of the spectrum for 40 meters, such as 6900-7000.
Perhaps CW can be moved further down the band and SSB expanded, or maybe
leave CW where it is and use part of the new section for SSB (IF we get it!)
73, Zack W9SZ
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest