Groups > uk.net.news.management > #17440

Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m

From	Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk>
Newsgroups	uk.net.news.management, uk.d-i-y, uk.radio.amateur, uk.local.glasgow
Subject	Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m
Date	2019-08-19 20:17 +0100
Message-ID	<X12oBaSiXvWdFwul@brattleho.plus.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <gs06neFtsdeU6@mid.individual.net> <qjeos0$1mf$1@dont-email.me> <gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net> <qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me> <%%B6F.32132$Zy3.24596@usenetxs.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In message <%%B6F.32132$Zy3.24596@usenetxs.com>, Roger Breedle 
<rb@rmb.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
>"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "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? 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, or do they
>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>
>
>Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?

We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.
>
>
>

-- 
Ian

Thread

Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:05 +0000
  Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 19:13 +0100
    Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:20 +0000
      Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 19:25 +0100
        Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2019-08-19 19:52 +0100
      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 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