[amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes

skristof at etczone.com skristof at etczone.com
Wed Jul 6 19:35:11 UTC 2016

Agreed. Consistency would be nice, even if it means going back to the
original designations.

Steve AI9IN 

On 2016-07-06 15:22, Peter Laws wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm at arrl.net> wrote:
>> AMSAT can officially
>> use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres
>> to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well
>> known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of
>> amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
> They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide.  Read the
> report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much
> of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least
> by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
> Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent
> notation.  Because "U/v, or UV,  70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old
> Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
> Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least,
> YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ...  Just
> sayin'.
> Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list