On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 11:10, Kenny Richards

<kenny@...> wrote:

Thanks Stephen, I'll just add a little more context to your great response.

Tony - The term 'weak signal' is a common definition for communication efforts which occur over a great distance, it refers to the signal being received, not sent. As Stephen pointed out, it is VERY common for hams engaged in this type of VHF/UHF activities to use very high power. For reference, here is a great ARRL definition/article for VHF/UHF Weak Signal communication. http://www.arrl.org/weak-signal-vhf-dx-meteor-scatter-eme-moonbounce

Thanks
Kenny

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 11:03, Stephen W9SK

<stephen@...> wrote:

QRO is typically used for “weak signal” as that is required for EME, often Aurora, DX, etc, in order for the Rx end to hear what is inevitably a very weak signal.  Typically, weak signal VHF/UHF is SSB phone, CW, and certain digital modes (eg inc in WSJT-X).  More on all that can be found among the weak signal enthusiasts at PNW VHF Society (PNWVHFS.org), whose members are typically not your typical FM repeater users.

 

Stephen W9SK

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io <wwara@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tony Brocato-AE7WZ via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2023 10:16 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] 2M Band Plan

 

Hi Everyone and Happy New Year.
Just a comment- Preface first-The xls file shows 144.0-144.3 to be "weak signal", for which I did not find a definition.
Part 97 designates 144.0-144.1 for CW use exclusively and I did not see any transmitter power restrictions. I would not consider 1500 watts CW to be "weak signal". It might burn a hole in my roof LOL.
I think this area of the plan needs a little clarification regarding use.
If I am missing something here, I can stand correction.
Thank you,
Tony
AE7WZ

Hi Everyone and Happy New Year.
Just a comment- Preface first-The xls file shows 144.0-144.3 to be "weak signal", for which I did not find a definition.
Part 97 designates 144.0-144.1 for CW use exclusively and I did not see any transmitter power restrictions. I would not consider 1500 watts CW to be "weak signal". It might burn a hole in my roof LOL.
I think this area of the plan needs a little clarification regarding use.
If I am missing something here, I can stand correction.
Thank you,
Tony
AE7WZ

On Dec 26, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Scott,

I finally had a chance to step through the latest version of the 2m band plan spreadsheet, here are my few notes.

1) Question about how to handle the wide-band shared non-protected pairs?
My recommendation is that we convert one of them to SNP narrowband immediately, creating another opportunity for narrowband systems. Then be sure to incorporate the remaining wide-band SNP into the final plans for when the final migration to narrowband occurs down the road.

2) Can we incorporate the two commonly used packet radio frequencies used in WWA into the band plan? I never figured out how 144.39 was OK since it is in the middle of the OSCAR sub-band, but that is the accepted 1200 baud frequency in the US. I'd also request adding 144.35 for 9600 baud.

3) Since we ditched the Ultra Narrowband Digital pair #1 (146.005 / 146.605) due to the overlap with the cross-band linking frequency (146.600), I'd relabel the Special Ultra-Narrowband Prt pair #2, dropping the #2. Can we also be sure to label the Ultra-Narrowband Digital pair as being 6.25 kHz wide though?

Unless more feedback comes in, I'd recommend putting this to a vote at the next general meeting and making it official. I think it is a big improvement over the current band plan. I hope someone will volunteer to tackle the remaining bands.

Thanks
Kenny