[HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
Bob Richie
bob.k5yb at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 2 12:31:20 EDT 2012
You are correct and all the information I provided below is true. Some rigs can be modified to cover the 11 meter band but don't do it for a couple of reasons. 1) the rig is not type certified by FCC for operation on 11 meters so would be illegal to use for that purpose 2) if the rig is still under warranty modification will void that warranty. In order to legally operate on the CB bands you'll need to get a CB radio. Tons are available at garage sales for cheap and some guys keep one in their shack just to monitor. Some hams use a CB while traveling because there is no fiddling with frequencies for different repeaters and many sheriff's departments and police departments monitor CB channel 9. I do not use CB but some members of the club do for various purposes. Ham radio is governed by CFR 47 part 97. CB, FRS, GMRS and MURS are covered by CFR 47 part 95. There was a recent article in QST on emcomm saying hams should be familiar with the part 95 modes.
Some search and rescue teams use FRS because of it's low cost and ease of use. These may not be modes you are interested in using on a regular basis but it does not hurt to be familiar with them.
Bob
K5YB
Kerrville, TX 78028
________________________________
From: Gary and Arlene Johnson <qltfnish at omniglobal.net>
To: Bob Richie <bob.k5yb at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
Research of the Freqs indicates these are the Freqs
that CB radio is in, at least it is only talked about on the CB radio discussion
boards. Not sure if I am legal to go there with a Ham Radio, burt they are
good to know about anyway.
Gary J
N5"BAA"
----- Original Message -----
>From: Bob Richie
>To: Gary and Arlene Johnson
>Cc: HCARC Reflector
>Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 9:31 AM
>Subject: Re: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
>
>
>Gary, there is a group of legal frequencies between 26.965 and 27.405 wherein hams are permitted to talk to other hams or even non hams.. These are discussed in CFR 47 Part 95. Ham radio is covered in CFR 47 Part 97. One frequency , 27.065, is reserved for emergency communications or traveler assistance. Some hams use these frequencies while traveling because of the great silence on 146.52. I have only heard a part of a QSO on 146.52 so I no longer even bother with it. There are specific rules covering the use of the frequencies from 26.965 to 27.405 such as power, antenna height, length of QSO, etc. hi
>
>Bob
>K5YB
>Kerrville, TX 78028
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Gary and Arlene Johnson <qltfnish at omniglobal.net>
>To: Bob Richie <bob.k5yb at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
>
>
>
>Whose frequency is 27.185 for??? 28-29.7 is 10 meters, and 24.89-24.99 is 12 meters. What approved Band is 27.185 mhz??? Or is it a typo??
>
>Gary J
>N5"BAA"
>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Bob Richie
>>To: Gary and Arlene Johnson ; ccrobins at ktc.com
>>Cc: hcarc at mailman.qth.net
>>Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:11 PM
>>Subject: Re: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
>>
>>
>>27.185 MHz is pretty good for local communications.
>>
>>Bob
>>K5YB
>>Kerrville, TX 78028
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Gary and Arlene Johnson <qltfnish at omniglobal.net>
>>To: ccrobins at ktc.com
>>Cc: hcarc at mailman.qth.net
>>Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 9:10 PM
>>Subject: Re: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter rag chew?
>>
>>I hate to rain
on this parade, but has anyone done a study/poll of the techs
>>in the
club that don't have access to a spouse who is a General or above and
>>has access to the HF bands above 10 meters that way, or if no spouse,
has
>>access to a radio that will transmit on 10 meters SSB?? I
suspect this
>>number is very small. IF a Tech were going to go out
and procure a radio
>>that could transmit on HF SSB, and erect an antenna
to do likewise, isn't it
>>reasonable to also think that the same Tech
would be in the process of
>>upgrading to General so that he/she had full
use of all the bands in HF to
>>utilize this "new" radio on?? I
realize that there are some Techs who have
>>been coming down to the Club
Station and getting on the air with Gale.
>>However, those Techs are not
restricted to 10 meters if Gale is present as
>>they can use him as the
Control Operator and can go anywhere on HF. I know
>>what a great
service Gale provides, I have taken advantage of this service
>>myself.\
>>
>>If I were a Tech looking at this whole exercise from a
"Should I bother to
>>upgrade point of view", I could logically conclude
it's not worth my time
>>and effort, since the HF band test results to
date won't even let me talk to
>>my friends locally.
>>
>>What we should
be concentrating on, in my never quite humble enough opinion
>>is finding
out which Frequencies we can reliably communicate locally using
>>HF and
getting good at doing that vs trying to restrict ourselves to any one
>>set of Frequencies. Who knows, there might be a day when we need
to use HF
>>to communicate locally.
>>
>>If I have stepped on any toes,
I apologise in advance.
>>
>>Gary J
>>N5"BAA"
>>
>>
>>
>>-----
Original Message -----
>>From: "Charley & Peggy Robinson" <ccrobins at ktc.com>
>>To: <hcarc at mailman.qth.net>
>>Sent:
Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:03 PM
>>Subject: [HCARC] Abandoning 10 meter
rag chew?
>>
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I've been enthusiastic about
the 10 meter rag chew idea because I liked
>>> Gale's idea of
getting the tech class operators involved in working on
>>>
HF. I was enthusiastic enough to erect a 10 meter dipole in
several
>>> configurations and I'm still moving it around in an effort
to get out
>>> better to the the Harper & F'burg area. I
missed out last Wednesday
>>> evening (my bad) after the last
redeployment. Thinking about putting it
>>> on the roof
temporarily next.
>>>
>>> Now, once again, there's a movement to
abandon the 10 meter band because
>>> of "propagation
difficulties." I submit that the "difficulties" could
>>> very
well be because of inadequate antennae - mine included. I plan
to
>>> work on better antenna deployment instead of abandoning the
original
>>> idea of trying to motivate the techs to get on
HF.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Charley
>>>
af5ao
>>>
>>>
______________________________________________________________
>>> HCARC
mailing list
>>> Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
>>> Help:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>>
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this
email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>>HCARC
mailing list
>>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
>>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>>This
list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the HCARC
mailing list