[600MRG] HF-MF band planning

[Edward R Cole]

Bill,

Antenna realities have the biggest effect on effective radiated 
power.  Antenna efficiencies are down at 1% or lower for most.  I run 
100w output to my antenna and get 4.15w radiated.  My worms are toasty! ;-)

So if you run 1/10 or even less power you will be QRPp, for 
sure.  But the WD2XSH group has made ground wave tests in several 
locations and ground wave looks to be 100% out to 100-150miles.  My 
4w ground wave was received 90mi from me with a SNR of 30-dB and 
higher.  This was ordinary CW.  So that means you probably can run 1w 
output and have a nice signal over short-range.

If the FCC does not create a ham band then we will continue with FCC 
Experimental Licenses.  All of us on this list are operating under 
experimental licenses.  If you desire one, there are several members 
that can help you with the application wording.

My personal belief is eventually we will have a ham band...how soon??

Also do not think there will be much of any commercial gear 
(Kenwood/Icom/Yaesu) that operate down here.  I do believe a cottage 
industry will emerge with transverters, converters, preamps, 
etc.  That may be in form of kits.

A new ham band is likely to start off slow.  I think that is good, so 
that band conventions can be developed before too many just casually 
start on the band.  I think we have a responsibility to try to come 
up with a plan.  Who knows the band better?  I suggest we use Fritz's 
band planning as a initial starting point (translated to 630m).  We 
definitely should consider what modes should be promoted and how will 
they fit and coexist.

If we have things well ordered and running then newcomers can simply copy us.

73, Ed - KL7UW

At 10:46 AM 3/4/2014, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm attaching here (after having read ALL of the messages I've 
>received). I have a lot more confidence in some of the hams than 
>others apparently do. I also expect it to be a lot of hams like me 
>with more modest transmitting capability and better receive 
>(opposite of the alligator) and QSOs limited geographically. If FCC 
>doesn't make a blanket ham band on 630 meters what is to really 
>prevent interested parties applying for (and hopefully getting) 
>appropriate "experimental" licensing grants?
>
>No..I don't really see much value in 630 meters as an alternative 
>communications 'channel' for *any* kind of emergency. But the thing 
>about emergencies is they are all different. So who can really say?
>
>73,
>
>Bill  KU8H
>
>
>On 03/04/2014 02:26 PM, sbjohnston at aol.com wrote:
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would like to see it play out like on 160, where the band is self
>>>policed and those of us who use the band make the decisions about 
>>>how its used.
>>
>>I couldn't agree more. And that way things are flexible for the future.
>>
>>
>>
>>Steve WD8DAS
>>
>>sbjohnston at aol.com
>>http://www.wd8das.net/
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Radio is your best entertainment value.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>600MRG mailing list
>600MRG at w7ekb.com
>http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
     "Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
     dubususa at gmail.com