RadioBanter - View Single Post - ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation

August 25th 04, 02:47 AM

In article ,
(Jim Hampton) writes:

Hello, Jim

Greetings from a former denizen of Palmyra and Newark...

Well, I truly was *not* sure. Thanks for the information, however.

You're welcome!

Amazing how long these threads get over something which is not
particularly earthshaking these days

Sure.

But for me the important question is: Should there be CW-only subbands? I say
yes - about the lowest 15-20% of each HF/MF hamband. Including 160.

Why not? Would it really bother anyone if 3500-3575 and 7000-7050 were CW only?

I do remember a time in the late 70s when 73 magazine was *huge*.
That magazine had to be 3/8 of an inch thick back then. I've seen
some nice articles in some of those (but they, too, are a long time
gone).

Yep. I never subscribed but I sure read 'em.

I went looking for that website where the guy was scanning old 73s but couldn't
find it. Maybe there were copyright issues or something.

I keep thinking about getting back on HF.

DO IT.

I'll likely go web surfing
for construction ideas on some loop antennas (I'd still like to get
back on 160 and that would be the only way I could possibly do it).

Do you mean horizontal loop (as in a wavelength long) or a small vertical loop?

Meanwhile, it's the old dipole in the attic currently (on 10) plus 440
It is, of course, at right angles to the cables to the satellite
tv dish

(sigh)

In Palmyra I had a lovely inverted L. Out the basement window and up the side
of the house to a bracket, then out to a convenient tree in the yard. Just
about 140 feet, worked really well 80-20. Overlooked the old Erie Canal (not
the modern barge canal).

As the sunspots fade the bands below 20 will just get better and better. Enjoy
them while we can.

You ever get to Rick's or to Dinosaur BBQ?

73 de Jim, N2EY