2m Bandplan
Chris Kirby <>
See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
Was anyone consulted?
The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
better off without channel numbers at all.
There is a now section of the two metre band (between 144.5 and
144.794) where it is quite permissible to operate FM with a maximum
bandwidth of 20kHz between the 6dB points. So, wide-band FM is
"allowed" once again. (maybe not a bad thing?)
Where have the "emergency communications priority" channels gone?
And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
frequency. Fixed stations please note!
Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
Is this the work of the RSGB's VHF committee? Or could this be the
first on a series of works by the Lord High Spectrum Director?
What a farce!
Chris
Brian Reay
news:pt4k1vcplf226i7jj...@4ax.com...
> The new two metre bandplan was published on 29th November.
>
> See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
>
> Was anyone consulted?
Everyone but you and me, it would appear ;-)
>
> The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
> that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
> the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
> numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
> better off without channel numbers at all.
What was the V for? "Virtually unused" I assume?
S20 will be S20 for years to come, I am sure.
>
> There is a now section of the two metre band (between 144.5 and
> 144.794) where it is quite permissible to operate FM with a maximum
> bandwidth of 20kHz between the 6dB points. So, wide-band FM is
> "allowed" once again. (maybe not a bad thing?)
Well the whole 12.5kHz issue was a farce if ever there was one. The
'discussions' it causes locally are unbelieveable at times.
No doubt we can look forward to a repeat on 70cm in due course.
>Where have the "emergency communications priority" channels gone?
>
Chris, will you please try and keep with the programme. Haven't you heard of
5MHz and NVIS? That NoV acronym means No Vests - the Raynet yellow vest is
not required on 5MHz, as mobile ops are not allowed. Thus no one will be
outside, so no one needs to wear a hi vis vest (but I'm sure they can for
'special' reasons- if there know all the Q codes).
> And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
> frequency. Fixed stations please note!
>
Well, custom and practice locally seems to be to use the local repeater as
the calling channel - which makes some sense in my view.
> Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
> talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
>
> Is this the work of the RSGB's VHF committee? Or could this be the
> first on a series of works by the Lord High Spectrum Director?
>
Well, there is 5Mhz, 500kHz, (hopefully) something near 220Mhz for him to
'direct' first but who knows after that.
Haven't you had you consultation pack yet- everyone else has ;-)
73
Brian
g0mem
"Brian Reay" <brian...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:avd7bk$eftpe$1...@ID-140397.news.dfncis.de...
> "Chris Kirby >" <<g4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pt4k1vcplf226i7jj...@4ax.com...
> > The new two metre bandplan was published on 29th November.
> >
> > See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
> >
> > Was anyone consulted?
>
> Everyone but you and me, it would appear ;-)
>
> >
> > The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
> > that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
> > the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
> > numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
> > better off without channel numbers at all.
>
> What was the V for? "Virtually unused" I assume?
>
> S20 will be S20 for years to come, I am sure.
Well it certainly is here. And everyone still calls it S20, although a
couple of newly licensed local Hams didn't know the term S20.
> > There is a now section of the two metre band (between 144.5 and
> > 144.794) where it is quite permissible to operate FM with a maximum
> > bandwidth of 20kHz between the 6dB points. So, wide-band FM is
> > "allowed" once again. (maybe not a bad thing?)
>
> Well the whole 12.5kHz issue was a farce if ever there was one. The
> 'discussions' it causes locally are unbelieveable at times.
> No doubt we can look forward to a repeat on 70cm in due course.
>
>
> >Where have the "emergency communications priority" channels gone?
> >
>
> Chris, will you please try and keep with the programme. Haven't you heard
of
> 5MHz and NVIS? That NoV acronym means No Vests - the Raynet yellow vest
is
> not required on 5MHz, as mobile ops are not allowed. Thus no one will be
> outside, so no one needs to wear a hi vis vest (but I'm sure they can for
> 'special' reasons- if there know all the Q codes).
>
> > And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
> > frequency. Fixed stations please note!
Well it's still the 'S20' FM calling channel to everyone around here, and
will continue to be used as such.
Mike Turner
G0MEM
Steve Terry
> See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
> Was anyone consulted?
>
>
> The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
> that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
> the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
> numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
> better off without channel numbers at all.
>
IMHO 12.5KHz with 2.5KHz dev was a terrible mistake
The Yanks got it right with 20KHz steps and 5KHz dev
(a result of the FCC docket system)
Also with freqs measured to only 2 decimal places as with 20KHz spacing,
you don't need channel numbers
Steve Terry
Brian Howie
"Steve Terry" <g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:avdbkq$edh81$1...@ID-139484.news.dfncis.de...
> "Chris Kirby >" <<g4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pt4k1vcplf226i7jj...@4ax.com...
> > The new two metre bandplan was published on 29th November.
> > See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
> > Was anyone consulted?
> >
> Without a docket system obviously not
> >
> > The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
> > that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
> > the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
> > numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
> > better off without channel numbers at all.
> <snip>
> >
> IMHO 12.5KHz with 2.5KHz dev was a terrible mistake
> The Yanks got it right with 20KHz steps and 5KHz dev
> (a result of the FCC docket system)
The Yanks have 4Megs, thus can afford to do that.
The band plan should really be tailored to current usage. The telegraphy
allocation is more than it needs to be; I last heard CW down there in August
last year. The space allocation is also excessive at more than 10% of the
European allocation.
Bear in mind however that the band plans are merely guidelines, you are free
to operate to suit your local conditions.
Brian
Ken Clark
boonies down in pixieland so what's new... Never mind, it appears that
sanity is at last creeping in and us old timers and old biddies can once
again take our dusty old radios off the shelf and use them again - you
know, the radio's with no sub audible tones and funny ctcss stuff.... It
ever there was an instant damper put on the normal chatty operation of VHF
it was the introduction of a raft of silly new rules and regs introduced
simply to pull up the ladder for a few newbies. The regs instantly put many
people out of the loop if they couldn't afford new black boxes or didn't
have the expertise to modify their equipment. Some might say 'so what' but
at a time when activity and membership was dwindling it did seem daft to
impose another load of unwanted rules.... The Yanks are right again. If it
ain't broke, don't mend it!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"
Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com
"Brian Reay" <brian...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:avd7bk$eftpe$1...@ID-140397.news.dfncis.de...
MattD..
> Never mind, it appears that
> sanity is at last creeping in and us old timers and old biddies can
> once again take our dusty old radios off the shelf and use them again
> - you know, the radio's with no sub audible tones and funny ctcss
> stuff....
We of the older radio kit have one big advantage when it comes to RSGB band
planning. We use VFOs (remember those? they have the ability to put one on
any spot frequency) and no matter if they say 145.5055 is now S20, we can
still get there. Even my old FDK with its dodgy synthesiser can go down to
100Hz steps (as long as I've calculated the potential divider on the synth
board and the resistors on that damn counter IC on the control board are
good - they go high with age and the 100Hz becomes 90odd. Anyone with an
FDK that doesn't do 100Hz steps properly, I have a cure providing you have
a frequency counter) so we're OK for as long as we can keep our radios
running for!
--
MattD..
Brian Reay
news:ave6k0$gfg$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I for one haven't had a pack of advisory info, but then I live in the
> boonies down in pixieland so what's new...
Actually Ken, the comment was tongue in cheek- I doubt many, if anyone, had
such a pack.
>Never mind, it appears that
> sanity is at last creeping in
I take it that is a joke. ;-)
Then again, there is a first time for everything.
>and us old timers and old biddies can once
> again take our dusty old radios off the shelf and use them again - you
> know, the radio's with no sub audible tones and funny ctcss stuff.... It
> ever there was an instant damper put on the normal chatty operation of VHF
> it was the introduction of a raft of silly new rules and regs introduced
> simply to pull up the ladder for a few newbies.
Well, to be fair, the new 'rules' only really impacted on repeater
operation- normal simplex could continue without ctcss and with 5kHz
deviation (the 25kHz standard).
Nor do I think it was much to do with 'newbies' more a little bit of
knowledge leading to ill thought out policy.
>The regs instantly put many
> people out of the loop if they couldn't afford new black boxes or didn't
> have the expertise to modify their equipment.
Not really, stations don't get much older than mine, my main 2m radio is
nearly 25 years old and doesn't have ctcss. It can operate as well as the
latest rice box. I did adjust the deviation but that isn't rocket science
and, if you don't have the expertise or a modulation meter, a local will
probably help.
The real problem is that many people (and this is long before the first M3)
just didn't understand the issues and suddenly became convinced their radio
was obsolete when it couldn't access the local repeater due to a lackof
ctcss There is an article in my website you may find useful, it covers the
issues as they relate to repeaters.
> Some might say 'so what' but
> at a time when activity and membership was dwindling it did seem daft to
> impose another load of unwanted rules.... The Yanks are right again. If it
> ain't broke, don't mend it!
>
The whole 'change over' was messed up. It happened at a time I was all but
QRT and, when I once more found the hobby, I was amazed at the
misconceptions that were circulating locally. Many local amateurs consigned
perfectly good radios to a dark corner in the belief that the lack of ctcss
was the problem. Many locally are now back in use after 10 mins work with a
modulation meter.
Having said that, a ctcss unit is a basic project (too simple for me to
accept one as an IL project), that you could readily knock up and add to an
older radio.
73
Brian
G8OSN
David Honey
>
> And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
> frequency. Fixed stations please note!
Interesting. There doesn't seem to be any FM calling frequency for
fixed stations! Having said that, local practice seems to be to use
the local repeater as a calling channel. Having said that, I thought
the primary use of repeaters was for mobile stations.
So, what's the official position on FM calling frequency for
fixed stations?
Also, whereas the old plans showed specific simplex channels, the
new one doesn't mention them at all. Is that an oversight?
Or perhaps any frequency in the range 145.206 to 145.5935
can be used subject to keeping sidebands in that range and
avoiding the RTTY local and mobile FM calling frequency :-()
Hopefully the RSGB will produce a clearer bandplan on their
web site soon.
73 de David, M3DHO
Andy Cowley
>
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:12:35 +0000, in article
> <pt4k1vcplf226i7jj...@4ax.com> Chris Kirby
> <<g4...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> > See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
> >
> > Was anyone consulted?
>
> Backwards club members?
>
> Don't like it, ignore it.
That certainly worked well for the last revised 2 m
bandplan. "Up one" certainly means 145.525 round here.
Deviation is controlled by talking a little further
from the mic ;-) We don't suffer from compulsory CTCSS
either.
vy 73
Andy, M3ABC
RVMJ
>And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
>frequency. Fixed stations please note!
>
>Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
>talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
>
>Is this the work of the RSGB's VHF committee? Or could this be the
>first on a series of works by the Lord High Spectrum Director?
>
>What a farce!
And what of all those gullible enough to believe what they're told,
who have had their filters replaced and deviation adjusted, just to
suit an arrangement designed to release more 'channels' - just at the
time when occupancy fell to very little?
If this is management - give me anarchy anytime.
This station now listening High to Low...LOL.
--
from
RVMJ
Remove Safety-&-Arming before e-mailing
g3...@qsl.nospam.net
wrote:
>Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
>talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
Chris...
The accepted UK microwave "talkback" (liason) frequency, for at least
the past two decades, has been 144.175MHz ssb. The French often use
144.330-144.390MHz. Dutch and German stations really hate using
144MHz, preferring instead to call on the 432MHz band. All this is a
result of popular usage rather by any form of IARU or RSGB
bandplanning.
It might be worth emailing the "man in charge" at
mailto:vhf.m...@rsgb.org.uk to find out why the recommendations you
mention were withdrawn.
I can't recollect any discussion of a bandplanned talkback frequency
at VHF coming up at uWave Committee meetings. Bandplanning within the
various amateur microwave bands is, of course, a regular topic on the
agenda (see RadCom, November 2002, page 53).
73
Peter, G3PHO
Editor RSGB Microwave Newsletter
MattD..
> My old TR751E will do that as well. A good game - to confuse the 'my
> place' out of new ticket-holders - is to gradually tune off the
> channel you are chatting to them on and tell them *they* are drifting
> off frequency. ;-)
ROTFLMAO!
--
MattD..
Chris Kirby <>
>Chris Kirby wrote:
>
>>Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
>>talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
>
>Chris...
>
>The accepted UK microwave "talkback" (liason) frequency, for at least
>the past two decades, has been 144.175MHz ssb. The French often use
>144.330-144.390MHz. Dutch and German stations really hate using
>144MHz, preferring instead to call on the 432MHz band. All this is a
>result of popular usage rather by any form of IARU or RSGB
>bandplanning.
>
>It might be worth emailing the "man in charge" at
>mailto:vhf.m...@rsgb.org.uk to find out why the recommendations you
>mention were withdrawn.
>
>I can't recollect any discussion of a bandplanned talkback frequency
>at VHF coming up at uWave Committee meetings. Bandplanning within the
>various amateur microwave bands is, of course, a regular topic on the
>agenda (see RadCom, November 2002, page 53).
>
>
The former bandplan (http://www.rsgb.org/bandplans/cd1911.htm) did
show the frequency of 144.175MHz as designated for microwave talkback.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the same frequency should not be
used any longer, but it seems a shame that some of the informative
elements are no longer shown in the most recently published bandplan.
(http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm).
It is conceivable that the removal of the informational parts of the
bandplan (ie. slimming it down) is a tentative step in a new push to
have mandatory bandplans incorporated into our licence.
Anyway, I take solace that the RSGB's VHF committee's web site at:
( http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/vhfc/bandplans/144mhz.band.plan.html )
hasn't changed, so either the VHF committee don't know about the
changes, or they haven't updated their web site since last November.
73, Chris
J.
<g4...@diver34.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I for one haven't had a pack of advisory info,
Nor I.
--
___________________
Posted by J.
West Bank
Tweeksbury
J.
<g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Also with freqs measured to only 2 decimal places as with 20KHz spacing,
>you don't need channel numbers
We don't need to designate bands by wavelength, but almost everyone
calls it two metres or 'two' never 144 Megs or '144'.
Old habits die very hard in amateurland.
Taffie
<g3...@qsl.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3e1a27a8...@usenet.free-online.net...
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:12:35 +0000, Chris Kirby <<g4...@yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
> >talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
>
> Chris...
>
> The accepted UK microwave "talkback" (liason) frequency, for at least
> the past two decades, has been 144.175MHz ssb. The French often use
> 144.330-144.390MHz. Dutch and German stations really hate using
> 144MHz, preferring instead to call on the 432MHz band. All this is a
> result of popular usage rather by any form of IARU or RSGB
> bandplanning.
>
> It might be worth emailing the "man in charge" at
> mailto:vhf.m...@rsgb.org.uk to find out why the recommendations you
> mention were withdrawn.
Just what is the point. The RSGB has never and will never listen to any
input from the membership. All they seem to want is to get more M3's
licensed and maybe increase the RSGB membership numbers and help that London
radio shop make even bigger prifits by ripping off the new M3's.
Come back Mr David Evans......all is forgiven......at least you were willing
to talk to the members and answer their letters. The present RSGB staff
couldn't give a toss about the members and when you phone for info the
contact does not know and asks one to 'look up' a web site in Finland!
Time for amateurs in England to get together and set up a decent radio
society.
10-10 Taffie.
Now a lapsed member.
Steve Terry
news:hrem1vgf25726bsgi...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:09:20 +0000 (UTC), luc...@eternal-flames.gov
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 19:35:58 GMT, nordl...@hotmail.com (J.) wrote:
<snip>
> Generally people do not go nutting on any Sunday in Autumn because you
> might meet Old Nick gathering nuts.
> Walt Davidson
>
He does a pretty good job of gathering them on here every day of the week ;-)
Steve Terry
Brian Reay
>
> Have you seen the Widdy Web Site?
>
> http://www.annwiddecombemp.com/
>
> The "Ann Out and About" section is quite entertaining.
>
Is that first piccy of her securing her position with the next Tory Leader?
If so, things may be looking up. He has a much better CV than IDS and he
stands a better chance getting the Country Alliance vote than Herr Tony.
I knew dear Ann was local but not that she lived in Sutton Valence- we
nearly bought a small farm near there 5 or 6 years back. Lucky escape.
73
Brian
Dave
Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hrem1vgf25726bsgi...@4ax.com...
> Wi' Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer
> Peter Gurney, Peter Davey
> Dan'l Whiddon, Harry Hawke
> Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all
> Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all!
Steve Terry
news:uujm1vcpcjmc9uhmt...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:09:44 -0000, "Steve Terry"
> <g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >> Generally people do not go nutting on any Sunday in Autumn because you
> >> might meet Old Nick gathering nuts.
> >> Walt Davidson
> >>
> >He does a pretty good job of gathering them on here every day of the week ;-)
> >Steve Terry
>
> Nick.
>
Greetings oh evil one.
I'm considering joining your association, I take it raping virgins,
and nuns is still the part one evil entry level course ? ;-)
Or do you have a new easy FL entry level ?
Steve Terry
J.
>On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:23:16 +0000, Walt Davidson
><wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.annwiddecombemp.com/
>>>>
>>>> The "Ann Out and About" section is quite entertaining.
>
>Ermmm... She has a reputation as a highly litigious individual.
>Which explains why I'm playing safe and not referring to her, but to
>something called Widdicombe.
She's not likely to discover who you are with that return
address.
--
___________________
Posted by J.
West Bank
Tweeksbury on^H^H^H Under Severn
Diphthong
> The new two metre bandplan was published on 29th November.
> See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
>
> Was anyone consulted?
Of course not!
> The powers-that-be have dropped the use of channel numbers. I suggest
> that this is because they tried to change them a few years ago from
> the well-established "S" and "R" numbers to silly "V" and "RV"
> numbers, and because no-one adopted them, someone has decided we're
> better off without channel numbers at all.
I know more than a few people who will happily say "I told you so".
Why couldn't the IARU see sense right from the start?! It was obvious
to everyone else that no-one was going to think of 145.2875 as V23 for
crying out loud. D'uh!
> There is a now section of the two metre band (between 144.5 and
> 144.794) where it is quite permissible to operate FM with a maximum
> bandwidth of 20kHz between the 6dB points. So, wide-band FM is
> "allowed" once again. (maybe not a bad thing?)
Is anyone going to take away my handheld for using 'wide' FM on
145.525? Thought not. Why bother with this stupidity then?
> Where have the "emergency communications priority" channels gone?
Surely emergency comms have priority on any channel?
> And the old FM calling frequency of 145.5 is now a Mobile calling
> frequency. Fixed stations please note!
Utterly mental!
> Recommendations for services such as Slow Morse, Talk-in, Microwave
> talkback, and the RSGB news have been withdrawn.
It must be poor joke, or any early version
Taffie
Stupid question as the RSGB was dealing with it. They never consult anyone.
Anyway what's all the fuss......the bandplans are NOT MANDATORY nobody is
going to 'slap one's wrist' for not abiding by them, are they?
*********************************************************
> Where have the "emergency communications priority" channels gone?
Who cares, the ones that used they were just a set of posers who liked
wearing 'high visability jackets'
*********************************************************
10-10 Taffie.
g0mem
"Taffie" <Versa...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:avn8af$e1b$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Oh gawd, not RAYNET again.
Mike Turner
G0MEM
Steve Terry
news:2v8q1v86lrostgkre...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:04:42 -0000, "Steve Terry"
> <g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >Greetings oh evil one.
> >I'm considering joining your association, I take it raping virgins,
> >and nuns is still the part one evil entry level course ? ;-)
>
> They go in for the raping and pillaging bit.
>
Oh.. I think i'll join them instead, sounds like that where the fun is,
have you got their phone number ?
>
> Down here we seldom get virgins - which is why many of them are here.
> As for nuns.... Do you know the average age of a nun?
>
Nope, I was going by the Sound of Music, none of them seem too old in that ?
and Julie Andrews looked decidedly shagable
>
> >Or do you have a new easy FL entry level ?
>
> it would have far more technical content than the amateur-radio FL.
> Those passing would have to prove they are capable of opening a box of
> matches - even if they don't know what to do with them, when they've
> got them open.
> Nick.
>
Got it, Arson is the way into your club, i'll be setting fire to an orphanage
during the next firemans strike.
Should get me a distinction in your new FL ;-)
I take it Dubyas plans to napalm and bomb large parts of Iraq
is part of your advanced course, likely to start in the spring
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
news:3e1a...@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
> "Steve Terry" <g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:avdbkq$edh81$1...@ID-139484.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Chris Kirby >" <<g4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:pt4k1vcplf226i7jj...@4ax.com...
> > > The new two metre bandplan was published on 29th November.
> > > See:- http://www.rsgb.org/2mand6m/2m.htm
> > IMHO 12.5KHz with 2.5KHz dev was a terrible mistake
> > The Yanks got it right with 20KHz steps and 5KHz dev
> > (a result of the FCC docket system)
>
> The Yanks have 4Megs, thus can afford to do that.
>
It's they that should be using 12.5KHz
>
> The band plan should really be tailored to current usage. The telegraphy
> allocation is more than it needs to be; I last heard CW down there in August
> last year. The space allocation is also excessive at more than 10% of the
> European allocation.
> Bear in mind however that the band plans are merely guidelines, you are free
> to operate to suit your local conditions.
> Brian
>
There's less FM activity now than in 1973 !
Where's me old FT2FB, CQ 144.48 ;-)
Or me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
Steve Terry
Chris Kirby <>
>In that case we should go back to 60KHz channel spacing.
>There's less FM activity now than in 1973 !
>Where's me old FT2FB, CQ 144.48 ;-)
>
>Or me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
>
Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
Thats a good point, Steve. With the levels of activity now seen on 2m,
there must now be a strong case for reverting back to 25kHz channel
spacing with 5kHz peak deviation.
It is quite apparent to anyone who has worked both 5kHz deviation FM
and 2.4kHz deviation (especially mobile without repeaters) that the
performance of the former far outstrips that of the very narrow stuff
- even when a narrow receive filter is fitted. So why not make best
use of the bandwidth we've got?
And (as someone has already pointed out) dedicating over 10% of the
band to satellite communication beggars belief.
Chris
Steve Terry
> Steve Terry wrote:
>
> >In that case we should go back to 60KHz channel spacing.
> >There's less FM activity now than in 1973 !
> >Where's me old FT2FB, CQ 144.48 ;-)
> >Or me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
>
> Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
>
I had one with Public Address using the TX modulator, 25watts o/p :-)
and the switch position on the control box.
Yer tell youngsters that today, and they don't believe yer !
>
> Thats a good point, Steve. With the levels of activity now seen on 2m,
> there must now be a strong case for reverting back to 25kHz channel
> spacing with 5kHz peak deviation.
>
> It is quite apparent to anyone who has worked both 5kHz deviation FM
> and 2.4kHz deviation (especially mobile without repeaters) that the
> performance of the former far outstrips that of the very narrow stuff
> - even when a narrow receive filter is fitted. So why not make best
> use of the bandwidth we've got?
>
no need to go back to 25KHz steps, 20KHz like region 1 is ideal,
it produces 20% more channels than 25KHz and looses all need for
any daft S or RV channel numbers, and most sets will switch to 20KHz steps
>
> And (as someone has already pointed out) dedicating over 10% of the
> band to satellite communication beggars belief.
> Chris
>
Steve Terry
Chris Kirby <>
>Chris Kirby wrote
>>
>> >In that case we should go back to 60KHz channel spacing.
>> >There's less FM activity now than in 1973 !
>> >Where's me old FT2FB, CQ 144.48 ;-)
>> >Or me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
>>
>> Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
Whoops. My mistake. Mine was an AM10D. (Dash-mount Cambridge) Not sure
if there ever was such a thing as an AM25D!! Then I got a boot-mount
FM Vanguard with a QQV06/50 in the pa.
The most interesting "Cambridge" I ever had was a U10B with the triple
conversion receiver, and several quick-heat YL1140s in the tx. I used
that for years. Still got a few spare valves - wish I'd kept the rig.
73, Chris
Steve Bainbridge
> From: "Steve Terry" <g4wwk-remov...@tesco.net>
>>
>> Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
>>
> "D" all transistor RX, Luxury sheer bloody luxury.
Wrong!! the D stood for dash, ie AM10D, FM10D. Boot mounts were B ie AM10B the
boot mounted cambridge, AM25B the Vanguard. The P series were the Portables as
the cambridges came in a portable version with a clip on battery pack.
All Cambridge sets had a transistor RX, the vanguards had a hybrid RX.
> I had one with Public Address using the TX modulator,
> 25watts o/p :-)
> and the switch position on the control box.
This is true using the TX mod txfr to feed a PA speaker.
73
Steve ex Pye Telecom Area Engineer.
Brian Reay
me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
> >
> > Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
> >
> "D" all transistor RX, Luxury sheer bloody luxury.
That brings back memories. I had both the B and the D in the late 70s. . The
latter had a H/B VFO on Rx and initially 'slope detected' until I built a
discriminator.
There was a 'quick and dirty' FM tx mod that work surprisingly well (I
forget the details) but adding a varicap was better.
The B - boot mount- had a 'Ledex' switch for remote channel switching.
Wonderful beast.
Both worked much better when the PSU was replaced with a proper mains
powered one.
They we old when I had them- things like the Pye Europa where already coming
onto the amateur scene. Still got a couple of those somewhere.
73
Brian
--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
Andrew Marshall
<?@yahoo.com> writes
>Whoops. My mistake. Mine was an AM10D. (Dash-mount Cambridge) Not sure
>if there ever was such a thing as an AM25D!!
I don't think so; but there was an AM25T (with a transistor receiver, as
in the AM10 Cambridge). I had one on 2m, and fitted the FM Rx IF and Tx
AF boards as extras, so that the rig was then AM/FM (the Tx oscillator
was also modified for phase modulation). I used the 'PA' position of the
remote-head switch to control several relays to switch the rig to FM.
> Then I got a boot-mount
>FM Vanguard with a QQV06/50 in the pa.
Ah yes; the FM25B. Mine had a QQV06-40A in the PA, and gave about 40w of
RF. A good rig in its day, made better by the addition of a preamp. I
used it as a 2m mobile rig for many years.
>The most interesting "Cambridge" I ever had was a U10B with the triple
>conversion receiver, and several quick-heat YL1140s in the tx. I used
>that for years. Still got a few spare valves - wish I'd kept the rig.
I never had a UHF Cambridge; but I have an unusual UHF Westminster, with
no antenna relay, and separate Rx and Tx BNC antenna sockets. I also
have a W30AM lowband Westminster, ~22 watts AM output on 70.26MHz using
a quick-heat QQZ06-40 in the PA. An E-band and two P-band W20AM/FM
Whitehalls under the bench too.
73,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Marshall
Unsolicited advertising matter unwelcome. Offenders may be blacklisted.
Gareth Rowlands
"Brian Reay" wrote:
> The B - boot mount- had a 'Ledex' switch for remote channel switching.
> Wonderful beast.
I have an FM10BV with the ten channel Ledex.
Not used it in years. Should I arrange for it to go to a good home ?
73, Gareth.
harrogate
AM25B was the good old Vanguard. Imagine that under the dash!
Story on them. When Cambs Police first got Volvos (144?) with electonic
ignition, when they transmitted the car speed drop by 30mph, no matter what
speed it was doing. Cured by wrapping the (then simple) ECU in tin foil and
grounding it.
--
Woody
Steve Terry
> Steve Terry wrote:
> >Chris Kirby wrote
> >> Steve Terry wrote:
> >>
> >> >In that case we should go back to 60KHz channel spacing.
> >> >There's less FM activity now than in 1973 !
> >> >Where's me old FT2FB, CQ 144.48 ;-)
> >> >Or me old AM25B with VFO Rx, tuning low to high !
> >>
> >> Mine was AM25D with ext vfo, tuning high to low, of course!
>
> Whoops. My mistake. Mine was an AM10D. (Dash-mount Cambridge)
> Not sure if there ever was such a thing as an AM25D!!
>
>
> Then I got a boot-mount FM Vanguard with a QQV06/50 in the pa.
>
>
> The most interesting "Cambridge" I ever had was a U10B with the triple
> conversion receiver, and several quick-heat YL1140s in the tx. I used
> that for years. Still got a few spare valves - wish I'd kept the rig.
> 73, Chris
>
A dashmount UHF Wessie ! About 18 inches long,
as a result almost all were boot mount
Steve Terry