Sigh, couple more bands to add to the list here. But with 22 antennas
around the property another couple likely won't be noticed. Putting a
signal on shouldn't be THAT difficult, but yes, given horrible antenna
efficiency of practical antennas at those freqs a fair amount of "in
shack" power will be required. And a base loaded antenna will be
considerably larger than something for VHF or even HF. On the other
hand, feeedilne is free- all you'd ever need can be obtained at your
local cable TV emporium. and zero expense for connectors. CW and
better yet digital is the way to go.
I have forgotten the call of the VE1 I visited some years back
who was seriously into 160 meters and UP. Think his VLF operation was
on 2200 meters. Somewhere around I have photos of his antenna and
loading coil... which was the size of a small automobile stood on end.
Challenging bands but that's what hamming is all about.
73,
Chip
W1AIM
FN34uj and elsewhere
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:57:35 +0000 (UTC)
Catherine James <catherine.james@xxxxxxx> wrote:
After many delays, the FCC has approved two new bands. These cover 472 - 479 kHz (630 meters) and 135 - 137.8 kHz (2200 meters).
We are allowed 1 watt EIRP on 2200 meters and 5 watts EIRP on 630 meters. Modes allowed include CW, RTTY, digital, and phone, although the bands are so narrow that phone does not appear practical. I expect these bands to focus on CW, JT9, PSK31, and other narrow-band modes.
You do not need antennas 300 - 1000 meters long to work these bands. Short, loaded verticals are the way to go. See http://njdtechnologies.net/whats-the-dumbest-antenna-ive-ever-tried-on-630-meters for simple antennas that work.
Because antenna efficiencies are *very* low, you should plan to run at least 100 watts in your quest for something approaching 1 watt EIRP.
See http://njdtechnologies.net/630-meter-class-de-amplifier for an example.
References:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0329/FCC-17-33A1.pdf
http://epa-arrl.org/fcc-approves-two-new-amateur-bands/