Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.local.glasgow > #1970
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.net.news.management, uk.d-i-y, uk.radio.amateur, uk.local.glasgow |
| Subject | Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m |
| Date | 2019-08-20 11:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <gs0ve7F4dioU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <qjemd5$hom$1@dont-email.me> <gs06neFtsdeU6@mid.individual.net> <qjeos0$1mf$1@dont-email.me> <gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net> <qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me... > "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message > news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was >>>>>>>>>> 159.3m >>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a >>>>>>>>>> 160m >>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the >>>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after >>>>>>>>>> you've >>>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so? > As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, > when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s? They are just as much traditionalists as the worst of the lawyers. That’s why they keep using terms like QSO, XYL, OM and wavelengths. > I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the other by a factor of > c. > Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays actually > display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, Nope. > or do they display frequencies in kHz/MHz, Yep. > but colloquially referred to as "in the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an > approximation. The radios don’t, but individuals do when referring to bands. But they use the frequency when telling you where to tune to.
Back to uk.local.glasgow | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:27 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 19:29 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-08-19 21:20 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 21:27 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Roger Breedle <rb@rmb.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:37 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Jim <jim@jim.jim.jim.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:54 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 19:35 +0000
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> - 2019-08-19 20:17 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> - 2019-08-20 07:31 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-20 06:41 +0000
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-19 20:49 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 11:07 +1000
Re: Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2019-08-20 10:30 +0200
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2019-08-19 19:55 +0100
Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 19:13 +0000
csiph-web