On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:16:58 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



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?

kHz is so much easier! Typing in 15145 is much easier than 15.145...

And kHz is generally what the cognoscenti use, at least in shortwave.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm


Problem is, the cognoscenti are consistently burdened with the
illiterati! LOL

Al in CNMI

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----