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

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "pa0wv" <pa0wv at amsat.org>
To: <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 3:38 PM
Subject: [CW] ARRL's Reply Comment re Baud Rate Petition


>I read from the hand of my respected radio friend:
>
>  "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."
>
> Right, but 80m is not for dx but for NVIS , local work. Of 
> course it is possible to creep on your knees to Rome, but 
> a plane is easier and faster. Also funier when you look at 
> the knee creepers below you,
>
> 500 kHz is much more heavy to produce some ERP, but it is 
> the challenge of amateur radio to make some connections 
> with home designed and build equipment under sub optimal 
> nearly impossible circumstances,
>
> When you want QRM QRN and QSB free connections at any 
> moment at low costs to anybody you imagine: Use the 
> Internet or some phone company.
>
> 73=30 PA0WV
>
     Well, lets say we disagree. 80 meters and, for that 
matter, 160 with proper antennas is good for DX, 80 
certainly but both rely on having reasonably low angles of 
radiation. NVIS works sometime but is highly dependent on 
absorption. Ground wave will also get you quite some 
distance but again relies on having a decent ground.
     I think it would be fun to play with 500 khz but 
remember that this frequency was used commercially from the 
beginnings of wireless and a great deal is known about 
propagation and antennas for it and for the MW broadcast 
band.  At some point you are just up against the laws of 
physics.


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