Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I dont know why you dont just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wifes drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****s sake. Thanks, Jim.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this
group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we
were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance.
The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like
that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few
valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into
the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up
on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don't know why you don't just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife's drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****'s sake. Thanks, Jim.

M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

you will have to excuse posts from this man as he is insane and loves to
cross post...sorry

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this
group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we
were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance.
The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like
that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few
valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into
the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up
on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don't know why you don't just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife's drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****'s sake. Thanks, Jim.

M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

you will have to excuse posts from this man as he is insane and loves to
cross post...sorry

ROLF!

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this
group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we
were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using
'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance.
The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and
at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like
that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page
of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in
multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult
to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few
valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into
the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made
up
on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don't know why you don't just buy a stock of your own ladies
underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife's drawers.
Have
some consideration, mate, for ****'s sake. Thanks, Jim.

M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

you will have to excuse posts from this man as he is insane and loves to
cross post...sorry

ROLF!

rolling on the floor laughing is a sign of madness......

"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.

"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 ....

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?

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.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:25:20 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this
group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we
were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using
'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance.
The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and
at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like
that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page
of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in
multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult
to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few
valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into
the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made
up
on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don't know why you don't just buy a stock of your own ladies
underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife's drawers.
Have
some consideration, mate, for ****'s sake. Thanks, Jim.

M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

you will have to excuse posts from this man as he is insane and loves to
cross post...sorry

ROLF!

rolling on the floor laughing is a sign of madness......

Yes but most of us can get up afterwards...

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.

On 19 Aug 2019 18:05:34 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don’t know why you don’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife’s drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****’s sake. Thanks, Jim.


You on them funny fags ...again?

Rambo wrote:
On 19 Aug 2019 18:05:34 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group
but here we go.
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?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I donÂ’t know why you donÂ’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wifeÂ’s drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****Â’s sake. Thanks, Jim.


You on them funny fags ...again?

Jims poor wifes drawers are no laughing matter, Rich. Especially not
after Jims peeled them off his taint.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In message , Roger Breedle
writes
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?

We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.




--
Ian

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
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 couldn't fathom it.

that was almost funny....ha.......ha

Thanks for the re****, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 19/08/2019 19:27, NY wrote:
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.

Well exactly.

Mile per gallon or liters per 100km/h?



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.

I suspeect radio amateurs know the damned relationships off by rote. Of
course knowing the wavelenght is handy when building antennae.


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
...
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 ....

LOL. Of course. I'd completely forgotten about old radio stations using the
term "c/s" rather than "Hz".

"c/s" is somewhat reminiscent of old editions of Wireless World and other
similar magazines which had a strange house style of putting a full stop
after every single letter of an abbreviation or unit, and always using
lower-case letters (so "c./s." rather than "c/s", and e.p.r.o.m." rather
than "EPROM".

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
...
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 ....

LOL. Of course. I'd completely forgotten about old radio stations using
the term "c/s" rather than "Hz".

"c/s" is somewhat reminiscent of old editions of Wireless World and other
similar magazines which had a strange house style of putting a full stop
after every single letter of an abbreviation or unit, and always using
lower-case letters (so "c./s." rather than "c/s", and e.p.r.o.m." rather
than "EPROM".
yes much better..I mean what does Hertz mean anyway...some German
punter........

"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?

They are just as much traditionalists as the worst of the lawyers.

Thats why they keep using terms like QSO, XYL, OM and wavelengths.

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,

Nope.

or do they display frequencies in kHz/MHz,

Yep.

but colloquially referred to as "in the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an
approximation.

The radios dont, but individuals do when referring to bands.
But they use the frequency when telling you where to tune to.

In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , Roger Breedle
writes
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?

We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.

Lord Kelvin of Glasgow University was the champion of the metric system.
The absolute metric temperature scale is named after him.

By a remarkable coincidence ,the non metric equivalent the Rankine
scale is named after a contemporary of his at Glasgow William Rankine.

Http://www.engineeringhalloffame.org...e-rankine.html

A proper Polymath and champion of the non-metric system.

"Two of Rankine's somewhat reactionary verses from "The Three Foot Rule"
which he sang at the British Association in 1864" Listed on the right

He was some kid.

Brian

--
Brian Howie

brian wrote:
In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , Roger Breedle
writes
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?

We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.

Lord Kelvin of Glasgow University was the champion of the metric system.
The absolute metric temperature scale is named after him.

By a remarkable coincidence ,the non metric equivalent the Rankine
scale is named after a contemporary of his at Glasgow William Rankine.

Http://www.engineeringhalloffame.org...e-rankine.html

A proper Polymath and champion of the non-metric system.

"Two of Rankine's somewhat reactionary verses from "The Three Foot Rule"
which he sang at the British Association in 1864" Listed on the right

He was some kid.

Did he ever get a postman in a headlock, tho?

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:07:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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?

They are just as much traditionalists as the worst of the lawyers.

Now ALSO an expert in radio amateurs' practices, you clinically insane,
"all-knowing", senile asshole? I guess nobody is surprised any more. LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/