Groups > uk.net.news.management > #17442

Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m

From	The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
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 20:49 +0100
Organization	A little, after lunch
Message-ID	<qjeug3$5vq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <qjemd5$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.

Show all headers | View raw

On 19/08/2019 19:27, NY wrote:
> 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.

Well exactly.

Mile per gallon or liters per 100km/h?


> 
> 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.

I suspeect radio amateurs know the damned relationships off by rote. Of 
course knowing the wavelenght is handy when building antennae.


-- 
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

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