[VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m
ve3ds at acanac.net
Thu Jul 13 18:52:38 EDT 2017
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 nice to have something worked out
before the Sept VHF QSO party...
Given the narrow band mode and it’s effectiveness that seems like a lot of space to operate. The bigger issue is running MSK144 which
uses more BW,
How that plays out in a crowded band needs to be assessed, but I know on JT it hasn’t been a problem
here as the antennas are very directional, and people generally are TXing on the same sequence … comments?? Ideas??
Any thoughts on having the FCC change the mode restrictions below 100, making it more harmonious with Canada, or
will that create problems for CW EME.?
73 Dana VE3DS
On Jul 13, 2017, at 17:49, Mark Spencer <mark at alignedsolutions.com> wrote:
Yes that makes sense. However in the past when using FSK441 I received some push back at times from other operators about using frequencies below approx 144.150 due possible interference with EME. I typically would just move up to a frequency above 144.150 in that case.
I seem to recall there are also beacons in the 144.275 thru 143.300 range.
Your point about staying on the same sequence is also a good one.
mark at alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Dana <ve3ds at acanac.net> wrote:
> Yes, looking at APRS on a SpecA 390 is pretty noisy…
> We also have pagers below 144 as well so 144.1 - 144.150 isn’t a bad idea, plus avoiding crowding the typical SSB frequencies used
> here in the east isn’t a good idea… we still have Packet operations going here sporadically too…
> Given the FT8 is a narrow band mode and if everyone stays on the same sequence you could probably almost survive on 1 frequency.
> Dana VE3DS
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 13:59, Mark Spencer <mark at alignedsolutions.com> wrote:
> 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 packet mode would work out well and I suspect the weak signal operators will be the losers in this situation.
> Some one smarter than me can probably speak to what a sensible frequency separation should be given typical amateur transmitter noise levels and receiver performance. After looking at the lower portion of the 2M band with a spectrum scope I suspect some transmitters are "cleaner" than others.
> Here in western Canada we also have strong non amateur signals immediately below the 2M band, between those non amateur signals and APRS, 144.200 seems to be a nice spot for weak signal work IMHO. I also use cavity filters at my home station (and occasionally while roving) with an approx 50 KHz bandwidth, but I realize we need to think globally and cramming every thing into a narrow window doesn't make much sense.
> Mark S
> mark at alignedsolutions.com
> 604 762 4099
> Mark Spencer
> Aligned Solutions Co.
> mark at alignedsolutions.com
> 604 762 4099
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 2:04 AM, K7XC Tim Marek <k7xcnv1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Take a moment to look at the IARU Region 2 band plan proposal at:
>> He makes some valid points not to mention his website is a wonderful
>> resource of VHF+ operating info.
>> With regard to 2M frequencies... we all need to get used to thinking
>> globally, not locally or regionally, as to supplement each others efforts
>> and not fall into conflict as activity and modes grow.
>> A bit of effort now to ensure everyone is on the same page now will go a
>> LONG ways to ensuring a mode conflict free band in the future.
>> Personally I would love to see some use of the area above 144.300 in region
>> 2 and putting FT8 up there now is a good way to promote that.
>> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09jh... sk
>> PS: If your not on the new WSJT Mode "FT8" for Terrestrial VHF, your
>> missing out! Its a vast improvement over JT65 for 6M DXing.
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:16 AM, k7xcnv1 <k7xcnv1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It has to be above 144.100 by law.
>>> Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android device
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Nick Pick <nicolasgagnon at hotmail.fr>
>>> Date: 7/12/2017 07:04 (GMT-08:00)
>>> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>>> Subject: [VHFcontesting] FT8 on 2m
>>> 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
>>> (in last ARRL June VHF, happen a few time when I hear someone but he was
>>> not hearing me and vice-versa) So... 144.079 perhaps?
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
More information about the VHFcontesting