Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted for referring to "80 meter phone".
Because 80 is CW/data and 75 is phone/image.
Look at FCC rules 97.301. They actually list 80 and 75 as
different bands, like 40 and 20. I'm not making this up.
I don't doubt you. But it seems a little odd to decide that
phone is 75 and CW and data is 80.
Oddly enough, in the "old days" the frequencies were simply
listed - no mention of wavelength at all. Using the old
designators, 3500 to 4000 kc. was A1, 3500 to 3800 kc. was F1,
3800 to 4000 kc. was A3, etc.
If you are at the bottom of the band you are at
85 meters. Same difference. (actually more, percentage-wise)
So why
would hams who insist on the precision of 75 phone and 80 CW
not also insist on 85 meter CW?
Precision has nothing to do with it. They're just simple shorthand
names that go way back.
Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters, 12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter
bands?
41 meters is actually SWBC, even though it's the top of "our" 40 meter band ;-)
I get 42.8 meters at 7.0 MHz, and 41.067 meters at 7.3 MHz. Yeah, were
in the mix there....
As the SWBC moves away, things get better on 40.
---
OK, here's one to toss around:
Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in
the "60 meter" region.
Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either:
1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to
2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc..
or
2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such
as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the
same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc.
Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz
overall?
73 de Jim, N2EY