[CW] ARRL's Reply Comment re Baud Rate Petition

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Brown" <ken.d.brown at hawaiiantel.net>
To: <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] ARRL's Reply Comment re Baud Rate Petition

     I want to respond to the comments about 160 meters. 
>From reading old ham magazines, I mean from the 1930s, it 
seems that even then 160 was not too popular. There were 
encouragments to try it because there was no QRM. Then, of 
course, it was taken away for a time and then returned with 
complex limitations on where it could be used and power due 
to its being shared with LORAN.  However, I think the 
biggest problem is antennas.  Understanding antennas will 
not make up for the need for physically large ones.  While 
one can cheat for receiving to a certain extent it won't 
extend to transmitting where efficience falls off very 
rapidly for antennas which are small compared to a 
wavelength plus these antennas need very good ground 
systems, something in addition to the antenna that requires 
a lot of room.  I think its safe to say that most hams are 
space limited; I think that dictates the choice of bands, at 
least to some extent.  Another problem is noise. Even 
outside of cities the noise is relatively high but in any 
city it can be impossible.
     To a lesser degree all of the above is true of 80 
meters too but less so, nonetheless a good 80 meter antenna 
is large and a lot of folks do with very limited ones.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dickburk at ix.netcom.com