[CQ-Contest] 40m "new" approach to staying in the band?

Jimk8mr at aol.com Jimk8mr at aol.com
Thu Nov 5 07:39:00 PST 2009


Back in the very old days of SSB, which was before even I got my license,  
by generating an SSB signal at 9 MHz and using a VFO covering 5.0 to 5.5,  
one could take the upper mixing product to cover 20 meters (14.0 to 14.5), 
and  the lower mixing product to cover 75 meters (4.0 to 3.5). 
 
As more modern radios evolved they kept the convention of using the lower  
sideband below 9 MHz and the upper sideband above 9 MHz.
 
The USB on 40 meters idea does make sense.  That's while it will be  
adopted about the same time that the USA adopts the metric system.
 
 
73  -  Jim   K8MR
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/5/2009 10:16:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
n2icarrl at gmail.com writes:

Not a  bad idea, at all.

Where did this business about high bands being USB,  and low bands being 
LSB come 
from, anyway ?

Are there any technical  or legal reasons why we shouldn't switch to USB on 
40 
meters  ?

73,
Steve, N2IC

kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
> Recently,  there has been some comment (privately and otherwise) about 
USA guys being  
> "out of the band" on 40 SSB.  Namely, how close to 7125 can you  get, not 
the "ooops" 
> type of split event where you end up using the  "wrong" VFO.
> 
> Call me stupid (nevermind, that's been done  before), but why are we 
still using LSB on 40m?
> 
> If we would  all agree to use USB on 40 SSB, then we could snuggle up 
against the  bottom
> edge.  Yes, this would cause the "reverse" problem at the  top end, but 
really, who is trying
> to run guys from up there?   For most of us, our antennas aren't that 
broad any way.
> 
> In  theory (or on paper, if you prefer), this would allow us to fit 
stations in  (well, maybe 2 more)
> in the valuable "lower half" of the phone  band.  And just think...one 
less item to complain about.
> 
>  Using USB on 40...wow...talk about extreme "out of the box" thinking.  I 
 wonder if that would 
> qualify for the XTREME category in CQWW?
>  
> de Doug KR2Q
> 
> PS...this is actually a REAL  suggestion.




More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list