Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [wsjtgroup] SixMeter Call Frequency Dialog... 50MHz Ops Read...

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan L. Rosner
    ... An excellent idea! ... I have consistent birdies on 50.270 in Chicago. ... 73, Jon WO9S -- Jonathan L. Rosner Phone: 773-702-7694 Enrico
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
      On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Randy Tipton wrote:

      > I am proposing we consider moving the six meter calling frequency. The
      > existing call frequency is 50.270 and is used by portable, mobile, cqing
      > stations and for activity periods ie Random Hours.

      An excellent idea!

      > The reason for moving is heterodynes or birdies on that frequency which
      > cause interference to some operators using the WSJT modes.

      I have consistent birdies on 50.270 in Chicago.

      > One proposed call frequency is 50.280 MHz.
      >
      > Please address the following points:
      >
      > * Do you presently have interference with .270? YES
      > * Do you support the ideal of moving frequency to assist those
      > that do have interference? YES
      > * Is 50.280 acceptable to you? YES

      73,
      Jon WO9S
      --
      Jonathan L. Rosner Phone: 773-702-7694
      Enrico Fermi Institute Fax: 773-702-8038
      University of Chicago e-mail: rosner@...
      5640 S. Ellis Avenue or rosner@...
      Chicago, IL 60637 USA
    • Andrew T. Flowers, K0SM
      I hate to say it, but there are going to be birdies everywhere. Moving the frequency isn t going to help this. There s nothing magic about 50.270 that makes
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
        I hate to say it, but there are going to be birdies everywhere. Moving
        the frequency isn't going to help this. There's nothing magic about
        50.270 that makes it any more prone to Part 15 QRM than any other
        frequency. Monitor QRM--probably the most common--can be moved with
        some carful adjustments to the monitor refresh rate. The trick with
        this QRM is to take the time to find the source and alieviat the problem
        that way.

        Calling CQ with a U/D guarantees that you have a clear frequency on your
        end.

        Andy K0SM/2

        Jonathan L. Rosner wrote:

        >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Randy Tipton wrote:
        >
        >>I am proposing we consider moving the six meter calling frequency. The
        >>existing call frequency is 50.270 and is used by portable, mobile, cqing
        >>stations and for activity periods ie Random Hours.
        >>
        >
        >An excellent idea!
        >
        >>The reason for moving is heterodynes or birdies on that frequency which
        >>cause interference to some operators using the WSJT modes.
        >>
        >
        >I have consistent birdies on 50.270 in Chicago.
        >
        >
        >>One proposed call frequency is 50.280 MHz.
        >>
        >>Please address the following points:
        >>
        >>* Do you presently have interference with .270? YES
        >>* Do you support the ideal of moving frequency to assist those
        >>that do have interference? YES
        >>* Is 50.280 acceptable to you? YES
        >>
        >
        >73,
        >Jon WO9S
        >
      • Arthur Jackson
        Thanks Tip for addressing these matters. I have interference on 50.270 as well and is one reason I don t operate on 6M as much. I also have some source of RFI
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
          Thanks Tip for addressing these matters.

          I have interference on 50.270 as well and is one reason I don't operate
          on 6M as much. I also have some source of RFI on 144.140 too, but that
          is in one specific direction (of course that is NE). 50.280 is a clear
          alternative for me here in Fort Worth, Texas. I say yes.

          For what it is worth, I would make sure to notify all the 6 Meter gods
          (SMIRK, 6 Meter Club, ARRL, CQ-VHF etc.) to pass the word around. Let
          me know if you would like me to put something in the SWOT Bulletin (Yes
          2M advocates love 6M too.)

          Art Jackson KA5DWI
          Sidewinders on Two RC Chairman/Bulletin Editor



          --- Randy Tipton <wa5ufh@...> wrote:
          > I am proposing we consider moving the six meter calling frequency.
          > The existing call frequency is 50.270 and is used by portable,
          mobile,
          > cqing stations and for activity periods ie Random Hours. The reason
          for moving is heterodynes or birdies on that frequency which cause
          interference to some operators using the WSJT modes.

          One proposed call frequency is 50.280 MHz.
        • Jon W0AMT
          I have interference all the way up and down 6 meters so moving the calling frequency doesn t much matter to me. If I am CQ ing on .270 it is always up 7 or
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
            I have interference all the way up and down 6 meters so moving the calling
            frequency doesn't much matter to me. If I am CQ'ing on .270 it is always up 7
            or down 9 or something like that. I don't generally have qso;s on .270. If it
            will actually help some operators with out moving the problem to another set of
            operators then moving it sounds ok to me.

            73, Jon
            W0AMT
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Randy Tipton
            To: DigitalOnSix@yahoogroups.com ; wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:48 AM
            Subject: [wsjtgroup] SixMeter Call Frequency Dialog... 50MHz Ops Read...


            I am proposing we consider moving the six meter calling frequency. The existing
            call frequency is 50.270 and is used by portable, mobile, cqing stations and for
            activity periods ie Random Hours.

            The reason for moving is heterodynes or birdies on that frequency which cause
            interference to some operators using the WSJT modes.

            One proposed call frequency is 50.280 MHz.

            Please address the following points:
            Do you presently have interference with .270?
            Do you support the ideal of moving frequency to assist those that do have
            interference?
            Is 50.280 acceptable to you?
            If not why not and what other frequency would you propose?
            What will be the best way to achieve a consensus agreement?
            Please comment on other issues that concern you about the call frequency?

            Note: This proposal is for WSJT Modes only. The 50.290 PSK31 / Other Digital
            Modes call frequency remains the same. We are not addressing SSB call
            frequencies!

            Note: No one is "Band Plan Master". I propose this for group dialog and will
            submit my response also. If there is no energy around this issue it will die on
            the web.

            Comments to either reflector: DOS (DigitalOnSix) or WSJTGROUP. (Seems most six
            meter operators are members of one or the other groups so this should get good
            coverage)

            Tip
            WA5UFH



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



            To unsubscribe, send an email to:
            wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            Activity Periods http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/WSJTGROUP/WSJTGROUP.htm

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • JAYB
            50.280 sounds good to me - i also have 270 qrm here. jay K2OVS
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
              50.280 sounds good to me - i also have 270 qrm here.
              jay K2OVS
            • Lee Scott - AA1YN
              Here is another reason not to move the 50mhz calling freq up in freq. In the midwest, there is a major start to use 50.300 as an FM calling frequency. I
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 7, 2003
                Here is another reason not to move the 50mhz calling freq up in freq.

                In the midwest, there is a major start to use 50.300 as an FM calling
                frequency. I discovered this while I was trying to work JT6M on 50.275.

                50.300 thru 50.400 is an all mode section of the band and FM is allowed by
                the bandplan.

                Yes I did point out the gentleman that he was intruding on the weak signal
                area of the band by placing his center freq on 50.300 and yes I did write
                to the League with some nice worded comments.

                Personally I don't see the need for moving the calling freq.
              • Brian Hoyland
                Hello to all, 50.270 is usually quiet in most directions at my station. 50.280 is also quiet in most directions to my station, but does get some FM scratching
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 8, 2003
                  Hello to all,
                   
                  50.270 is usually quiet in most directions at my station.
                   
                  50.280 is also quiet in most directions to my station, but does get some FM scratching from 50.300 ops when 6 meters is open to my south. 
                   
                  I would not be opposed to establishing a different calling frequency for 6 meters.
                   
                  Perhaps we should consider being even higher into the 50.300 to 50.600 window for all modes.  That might improve relations with ssb ops who consider their turf to be 50.100 to 50.300. For example, I have worked JA's on ssb as high as 50.280 during the crowded F2 openings a few years ago, and domestic stations will frequently be found running ssb in range of 50.200 to 50.250 during strong summer Es conditions.
                   
                  Thanks
                   
                  Brian, KC7OTV
                   
                   
                  --- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:48 AM
                  Subject: [wsjtgroup] SixMeter Call Frequency Dialog... 50MHz Ops Read...

                  I am proposing we consider moving the six meter calling frequency. The existing call frequency is 50.270 and is used by portable, mobile, cqing stations and for activity periods ie Random Hours.

                   

                  The reason for moving is heterodynes or birdies on that frequency which cause interference to some operators using the WSJT modes.

                   

                  One proposed call frequency is 50.280 MHz.

                   

                  Please address the following points:

                  • Do you presently have interference with .270?
                  • Do you support the ideal of moving frequency to assist those that do have interference?
                  • Is 50.280 acceptable to you?
                  • If not why not and what other frequency would you propose?
                  • What will be the best way to achieve a consensus agreement?
                  • Please comment on other issues that concern you about the call frequency?

                   

                  Note: This proposal is for WSJT Modes only. The 50.290 PSK31 / Other Digital Modes call frequency remains the same. We are not addressing SSB call frequencies!

                   

                  Note: No one is “Band Plan Master”. I propose this for group dialog and will submit my response also. If there is no energy around this issue it will die on the web.

                   

                  Comments to either reflector: DOS (DigitalOnSix) or WSJTGROUP. (Seems most six meter operators are members of one or the other groups so this should get good coverage)

                   

                  Tip

                  WA5UFH

                   

                   



                  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                  wsjtgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  Activity Periods http://www.qsl.net/wa5ufh/WSJTGROUP/WSJTGROUP.htm


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.