dxAce:

Yes, much better, like the difference of "Mentally Disabled Person" to
"Retard"--just loads of more class!!! grin

Warmest regards,
John

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


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