RadioBanter - View Single Post

June 2nd 05, 04:34 AM

In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article
,
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article
,
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article , JS
wrote:
Tuning through the bands last night I heard him on 60, 49, 41 and 31
meter bands so yeah he's still on SW.

My new radio should get those bands?

Divide 300 by the meter designation to get the approximate frequency
in MHz. In real terms, that's around 5, 5.9-6.2, 7.1-7.5, and 9.3-10
MHz.

Really, they should just drop the meter band stuff, which dates back
to the early 1900s. VOA doesn't bother with meters anymore.

Meters are wavelength, which helps put frequency of operation in
perspective when you talk about antennas, transmission lines and other
receiving components.

If people don't want information in meters they should speak up like
you have and if enough do then I'll drop the terminology.

Wave length in meters is just the inverse of frequency.

Oh well, you pushed a pet peeve button. Using meters for band designation
is either pointless nostalgia or a shibboleth, a secret password that
denotes group membership.

What do you suggest we use in its place?

How about Megahertz?

Well, when I have a specific instance in mind I type out the frequency
but in this case I was tuning through the bands and recalled that I
heard Brother Stair in passing through them but did not stay to listen
so I generalized that I heard him on certain bands. I did not note the
specific frequencies that I heard him on. The bands are noted by meters
not frequency so you must then have a frequency definition of the SWBC
bands.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California