[VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296

[Mark Spencer]

In my experience in South West VE7 Land and the PNW during contests SSB / CW activity on 144 MHz generally seems to go up from 144.200 in 10 KHz steps.

From a South West VE7Land / PNW perspective 144.174 seems about as good as anything for FT8 on 144 MHz.   It seems nicely spaced between the MSK144 calling frequency at 144.150 and the SSB/CW calling frequency at 144.200

I realize in an area where significant SSB/CW activity occurs below 144.200, 144.174 might not be a good choice for FT8.

73
Mark S
VE7AFZ


mark at alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree about 144.174. But, it is in use. It is in the software. Could be hard to change. But, when you start going lower in the band, people complain about interfering with EME. You could go higher. Little activity above 144.230, even during major tropo openings and contests. I dunno...
> 
> Buddy WB4OMG
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Klimas WZ1V <wz1v at sbcglobal.net>
> To: Buddy Morgan <beamar at aol.com>
> Cc: vhfcontesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 7:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
> 
> Buddy: I agree .174 is a far better choice than .500 
> and no need to go below .100 on those bands. 
> What I'd like to see moved is 144.174 - 
> way to close to the center of SSB-CW terrestrial work. 
> But where to move it to is the big question. 
> -73 Ron WZ1V
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
> 
>>   A few comments:
> 50.313  and 144.174 are pretty well established frequencies - they are already programmed into the software.
> Apparently some people agreed on 222.080. I do not know about elsewhere, but around here, there always seem to be concerns about interfering with EME activity, when you operate below the call frequencies. So, we thought that picking frequencies above the call frequency would be better
> I looked at 432.500. I thought some people might have antenna BW problems, that high in the band. Hence, we picked 432.174. 
> The concrete has not set, yet. Any other thoughts?
> 
> Buddy WB4OMG
> EL 98
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: barry <barry at k7bwh.com>
> To: vhfcontesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Buddy Morgan' <beamar at aol.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 3:41 pm
> Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] FT8 contest frequencies for 144, 222, 432, 1296
> 
> For what it's worth, the Pacific Northwest has generally agreed on these FT8
> frequencies after discussion at our last conference:
> 
> 50.313 
> 144.174 
> 222.080
> 432.500
> 1296.074
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting