|[AMRadio] "as the FCC intended"|
k5pgw at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 24 16:38:41 EST 2006
Yes, Don, I a little different idea. Being jammed up
in the "so called window' IS LIKE BEING FORCED TO SIT
AT THE BACK OF THE BUS!!! It is easy for AM stations
than run lots of high power to enjoy the so called
"Window" because if you run enough power in the window
you can be called "a tall ship", "heavy metal" and
"broadcast" like a clear channel station. There is
only room for about two or three QSOs in the window
with high power stations talking Coast to Coast in the
window. I live in Louisiana and it isn't unusual for
powerful stations holding a freq in the window with
one on the East cost and talking to a midwestern
station. That blanks out a third to one half of the
window for stations running less than vulgar power.
I have AM kilowatts and all powers in between but I
usually run a Ranger, Morrow or Apache. Why should I
have to run a kilowatt to work Ken in Arkansas or my
friends in Texas or Mississippi. The other night, the
AMI net was being covered up by everyone trying to
talk "in the window"!!
What if some of us AMers want to talk to someone other
than the dominators of the "window". With wide AM
signals, there can only be so many QSOs in the window.
Why should AM just give SSB HUNDREDS of kilocycles
while we sit crowded up in the "back of the bus".
Seems that more AM activity would generated if there
was more room to have a QSO because there would be
less jamming by other AMers and a lot more pleasant to
hold a QSO.
In case you wonder if I have the power, I have the
KILOWATT built by Sulphur John ( the late WD5EHS) and
as you said "it was a class act on 20 meters". Well it
will do the same on 75/80, but why should I have to
run that much power to elbow my way into the window
and cover up all of those running a pair of 6146s and
interfering with nets as is being done at present.
My idea is that the high power stations move out of
the window and elbow their way into some frequencies
so we can all have enough spectrum to have an Am QSO.I
operate SSB also but don't believe we should "give"
anything to the SSBers. The FCC expanded the spectrum
for ALL modes and including AMers. Those who don't
have Extra Class licenses have freqs as do other
classes to operate.
Not being difficult....just don't know why we should
have to go to 3.60 to "call" then move up to the back
of the bus and QRM each other. Just one person's
warped idea so don't be offended by it. 73, John,
--- "D. Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "VJB" <wa3vjb at yahoo.com>
> > Another thing that might be good strategy is to
> > frequencies ending in zero or five. It's the mark
> > a good operator to avoid self-channelizing in
> order to
> > more clearly provide elbow room for nearby
> > off to a side.
> > It also makes it harder for latecomers uninvolved
> > an existing QSO to zerobeat and "inadvertantly"
> > proceed as if they aren't hearing anything. I keep
> > telling you the carrier is an essential part of
> > signal.
> Excellent idea.
> In the past, I have even heard slopbucketeers gripe
> about stations that
> fail to transmit at "even frequencies." Better
> still, avoid frequencies
> that end in even ".0" kHz, if your vfo frequency
> indicator is of that
> precision and accuracy.
> The "avoid frequencies ending in zero or five"
> concept wouldn't apply to the
> 3878 nitwits, for example.
> I don't think we should establish any new "AM
> Windows" in the expanded band,
> but we need some guidelines for expected "calling
> Now that the novelty is beginning to wear off, I am
> hearing less activity
> (both AM and SSB) in the expanded band segments.
> Inevitably, when I call
> CQ, a SSB station comes back before I can get any AM
> response. While this
> might be a useful way to promote AM, a QSO with a
> SSB station is not what I
> am usually looking for when I call CQ. I can even
> call CQ-AM, and they
> still come back on SSB. I don't like to be rude and
> ignore the SSB callers,
> but I am finding it hard to establish an AM QSO when
> there are few signals
> in the band.
> Maybe some agreed-on calling frequencies would be in
> order, but we shouldn't
> allow these to evolve into "window" frequencies,
> with large roundtables,
> but QSY once contact is established to another
> vacant frequency, at least
> after more than 3 or 4 stations join the roundtable.
> Any other ideas on this?
> Don k4kyv
> This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard
> AMRadio mailing list
> List Home:
> Partner Website: http://www.amfone.net
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 17 Oct 2017.