Jump to content

Talk:70-centimeter band

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Popularity

[edit]

"70 centimeters is the most popular UHF ham band [...]" while probably true, reads in a way that makes it subject to misinterpretation. If you read quickly, as I did, and miss the "UHF" bit, one sort of takes a double-take.

Why make the UHF distinction? Simply said something like this "70 centimeters is a popular ham band [...]", it reads cleaner and is probably more informative.

I did not make the edit in the article, because I thought some discussion would be in order.

Rklahn (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After several days of waiting for discussion regarding this change, I took silence as assent, and made the change.

Rklahn (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

characteristics

[edit]

I've only recently started looking into Amateur radio and I have a question about the 70 cm band: What are the characteristics of this band that would make using it preferred to two meter? If someone can help, please improve the 70 cm article. Punkgeek 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try, starting with cleaning up some of the errors about multipath. Altaphon 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present "Comparison of the 2-meter and 70-centimeter bands" is somewhat debatable and totally unreferenced. It is true that for a given physical size, an antenna for a shorter wavelength can have more gain. (But note that collecting area scales as wavelength squared! :-) This does not show that you have a 5 dB improvement between radios at 450 MHz vs 144 MHz in real life. What about receiver noise figure, transmit power, ambient noise level, propagation, etc.? (In particular, lower frequencies are probably better in a hills and valleys situation.) Has someone published a test that shows 70 cm repeaters truly have much greater range than 2 M machines or is this a theoretical speculation? This kind of claim must have a reliable reference, or it should be removed.--Albany45 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In many areas of the US, at least, an important difference between 2m and 70cm is that the 2m repeater slots are all allocated (though the band is pretty quiet, on average) while repeater pairs on 70cm are still available. The difference in propagation (weak signal, long distance) is pronounced, also. I'm not sure this section is very helpful as it stands, since its focus is only HTs and repeaters. In any case, we need references.--Albany45 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stub?

[edit]

This article looks pretty complete to me. Is there anything else left out that makes it a stub? --ssd 10:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was removed: not a stub anymore, yay! -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to not make us-centric?

[edit]

So while we now have info about australia and the UK, it would be nice to have things from other places. More specifically, the ITU regions 1/2/3 regulations would be sufficient, I think, to remove the banner. Oddly enough, the band plans I could find from ITU-2 are only for MF/HF: http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/ which is weird to me. I haven't put that banner in there, so I am hesitant in removing it (being in Canada), but I feel there's already good information about things outside the US in there.. not sure we need that banner, basically. -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Usage

[edit]

The 70 cm band is being targeted as one of the places for the FCC to collect 500 Mhz of poorly used spectrum to auction off for wireless broadband in the United States. Since the ARRL is surely going to fight that, it might be useful to find information about how many licensed repeaters there actually are, how much the band is used, examples of how it remaining an amateur band is in the public interest.... I think this article lost focus on the fact that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not a place to conduct hobbies. Your grandmother doesn't know or care what a continuously loaded coil spring antenna is.69.37.85.3 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 70-centimeter band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 70-centimeter band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"70-centimeter" vs. "70 centimeter"

[edit]

Serious question raised in my mind by a recent edit.

When it is "70-centimeter" and when is it "70 centimeter" (dash vs space)?

I really don't know but I think the article should be consistent, unless for some reason its different in different cases.

cc: @Stereorock: who from a recent edit, may have some insight into this. Rklahn (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for asking! The distinction of the dash connects the number to the band as one single thing. You would write “70 centimeters” if you were measuring something, and the plural is used, whereas “70-centimeter band” is just one whole thing. The wave is 70 centimeters, so it is the 70-centimeter band. I don’t know if that makes sense. It’s basically used for a unified idea. For instance, I am 41 years old, so I am a 41-year-old man. The same logic applies there too. If what you are describing is part of the whole description, the dash seems to be used, whereas if what are describing doesn’t inherently cObtain that description, it can be by itself, and plural. I don’t think I’m describing they’ll why all that well, so if you have questions, please ask. I guess it boils down to we are talking about one band versus actually measuring the wave, if that makes sense. Stereorock (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes perfect sense now. Totally understand. Thanks for taking the time. Rklahn (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:70-centimeter_band&oldid=1197085800"