[SixClub] FM simplex

Mon May 16 12:05:12 EDT 2005

Hi,

Ok, I understand now the problem with .500! I use a
non base loaded antenna in my car, so I can work TX on
the whole band, so for my short experience on six, it
was never a problem. In fact this is a common complain
among local users who have commercfially available
antennas instead of home brw like mine: The short BW,
1.5 megs in some cases. This forces users to choose
between FM or SSB, and not everyone is willing to give
up SSb to FM (who would!). That is why the number of
6m RPT users is growing slowly in FK68, as the
majority of the action is on the SSB portion.

Thanks for the info. The only problem I see is that
here in FK68 land, things are done ala ARRL way. There
is practically no other voice here. In fact, there are
no 6 meter groups that I know of. Just SSB DXers and
the casual RPT user. I would be willing to change my
split if some uniform bandplan come along!

Gabriel, WP3BM

--- CBoone <CBoone at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 500 kHz vs 1.7 MHz split notes (I would have
> preferred 1.6 like 220 with
> even 20 kHz channels...that way EVERYONE has to move
> and there is no bias :)
> ==== (my article at 6mt.com has more info on
> this..and if anyone would like
> the see the updated version with a good chart
> showing proposed in/outs, I
> would be happy to send it)
> 
> 500k splits puts users xmt and rcvr all over the
> band as well as simplex
> channels all over the place...xmt from 51.0 to 53.5
> and rcv from 51.5 to 54
> (that's what you get when you base a late 20th
> century bandplan on 40yr old
> Motracs!)
> 
> 1.7Mhz instead puts ALL user xmt below 52.8
> MHz....thus the xmtr and antenna
> only has to cover 51-52.8....rcv would be 52.3 - 54
> (and ALL simplex would
> be in the middle centered around 52.5! This makes it
> easy for the USER
> antenna especially the mobile ones to work ok across
> the entire rptr input
> range...rcving? SWR is not that much of an
> issue...and you don't notice the
> difference anyway.
> 
> Other bands:
> 10mtrs is all -100 kHz
> 2 is mostly 600k offset (with some 1 Megs and
> oddballs in certain areas like
> NYC and LA)
> 220 is 1.6 Mhz offset (WAS originally 3 Meg
> offset...until docket 20282
> reduced the rptr subband to 222-225 in the 70s!..a
> lot of folks never know
> that or have forgotten!)
> UHF is 5 Mhz offset....though channel spacing and
> direction of offset may
> differ...
> 
> 6 is the ONLY one with NO national offset....with
> this being the 21st
> century, its time to base a NATIONAL plan on TODAY's
> technology, NOT 30-40
> years ago....BTW MACC areas (NW and Central US) is
> on the 1.7 split....500
> split is in the minority... The 1.7 MHz split allows
> 1MHz split users to
> migrate easily (only the input is changed...and they
> can run dual inputs
> during the changeover)...
> 
> But the way the 500 kHz plan was shoved down the
> ARRL VRAC throat was not
> proper...and with NO polling of members or ANY six
> meter op outside CA...You
> can read the story in QST that is mentioned in my
> article on the 6mt.com
> site for all the details...and when the ARRL DID
> finally do a poll, the
> 500kHz plan LOST by a LARGE majority (I have copies
> of all the poll
> answers...they were provided by ARRL HQ)
> 
> When presented with the facts, people still refuse
> to give in though....and
> thus 6mtr is the mess it is...
> (BTW the original 6m plan called for 600 K offsets
> because FM was not
> allowed below 52.5; hence that's why 52.525 came
> into being....but that
> split was not followed all the time...some rptrs
> used 52.76 in/52.525 out or
> 52.64in/52.525 out..We did have a 53.12in/52.525 out
> rptr in Beaumont, TX in
> the 70s; WR5AJW, later WA5EFI...Until the -1Meg
> offset plan in the 1980s,
> 52.525 was used as a rptr output....can you imagine
> 146.52 or 29.6 used as a
> permanent rptr output???....yes I know the
> crossbanders from 2m to
> 29.6...now if they would just turn them OFF when
> NOONE is on it!! I hate
> hearing IMD being passed onto 10 from the 2m side
> AND no ID as required by
> Part 97.....luckily not too many 52.525 systems like
> that exist....except
> one in Texas that is a big mouth alligator and ties
> up 52.525 with a linked
> rptr network!)
> 
> Chris
> WB5ITT
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sixclub-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> > [mailto:sixclub-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf
> Of Gabriel Sierra
> > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:59 AM
> > To: Mike (KA5CVH) Urich; World Wide Six Meter Club
> > Subject: Re: [SixClub] FM simplex
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I don't know what is the problem with the 0.5 meg
> splits, 
> > really. It has not been hard to implement here in
> FK68 land, 
> > and it gives more RPT channels, and that is
> important because 
> > the band is small, let alone the FM portion. I
> think it is a 
> > more efficient use of the spectrum, but that is
> just my 
> > opinion, for what it is worth! That aside, a
> national plan is 
> > a good idea. It is hard to figure out the RPT
> split in 
> > different regions when you travel. The problem
> with a 
> > national plan implementation is that not all will
> want to 
> > play into it for one reason or another, so, things
> will 
> > pretty much stay the same.
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> SixClub mailing list
> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sixclub
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:SixClub at mailman.qth.net
> 