wrote:
GeorgeF wrote:
Caveat Lector wrote:

RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40
has
been a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's
had

RTTY coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the
freq

was already in use (ya right!)

Some kind of RTTY contest going on.

Remember too that 40 meters is only 7000-7100 outside of IARU Region
2.

That will change in the next few years but right now a lot of DX is
allowed above 7100.

Even more is allowed below 7100, from where we sit.

And as we head towards sunspot minimum, folks who
were spread all over the bands above 10 MHz are being pushed lower in
frequency due to lack of propagation. Happens every cycle.

Good point.

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

bb wrote:
wrote:

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band
to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

How did he "blow it"...?!?!

He made a suggestion...Not a statement of fact.

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

Forgot to add:

This is not a prctical option, though. What is an "adequate"
amount of bandwidth for a mode today will, undoubtedly be way too much
or way to little tomorrow.

Skilled operators observing "Gentleman's Band Plans" remains the
prefered methodology for this.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

Forgot to add:

This is not a prctical option, though. What is an "adequate"
amount of bandwidth for a mode today will, undoubtedly be way too
much
or way to little tomorrow.

Skilled operators observing "Gentleman's Band Plans" remains the
prefered methodology for this.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Now you've got the idea.

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each
band
to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

How did he "blow it"...?!?!

He made a suggestion...Not a statement of fact.

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

73

Steve, K4YZ

The fact is that he's got all of the Novice subbands to go play in.