On 19 Aug 2019 18:43:17 GMT
Stephen Cole wrote:

Roger Breedle wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
"NY" wrote:

"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.


Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?

How about fathoms? Then when Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW fails to send a
signal further than quarter mile again we could say that he couldnt
fathom it.


Once we've Taken Back Control„¢ we should have British Frequency,
measured in furlongs.