Ping Ian Jackson 160m
"NY" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
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.
it's Mc/s actually ....
|