What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB

(K0HB) wrote in message . com...
What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Ham brains only respond to freqs, they do not do well with channel
tags. Like on 2M. "The .360 machine". "the .195 machine", etc.

w3rv

(K0HB) wrote in message . com...
What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Ham brains only respond to freqs, they do not do well with channel
tags. Like on 2M. "The .360 machine". "the .195 machine", etc.

w3rv

K0HB wrote:

What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB


On my Kenwood rig, I have them stored in memory, from memory location 51
to 55.
If Kenwood's methods are the same as the other guys, we could just say
"five one"
"five two" etc.

K0HB wrote:

What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB


On my Kenwood rig, I have them stored in memory, from memory location 51
to 55.
If Kenwood's methods are the same as the other guys, we could just say
"five one"
"five two" etc.

Jack Twilley wrote


What's wrong with calling them by their frequencies?


Certainly nothing wrong with that at all.

But since most of us will probably just poke them into 5 convenient
memory slots, some sort of easy memory aid might be helpful.

Whatever.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Jack Twilley wrote


What's wrong with calling them by their frequencies?


Certainly nothing wrong with that at all.

But since most of us will probably just poke them into 5 convenient
memory slots, some sort of easy memory aid might be helpful.

Whatever.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Brian Kelly wrote:

Ham brains only respond to freqs, they do not do well with channel
tags. Like on 2M. "The .360 machine". "the .195 machine", etc.

w3rv


That's because our rigs display frequencies. CBers talk about channel
numbers, TV
watchers talk about channels and so on. But broadcast AM radio talks about
frequencies, as listeners' radios are marked with frequencies (often
incorrectly as
54 to 160 KHz). The FCC talks about FM radio channel numbers, but the
public
only knows about frequencies, as that is how most all radios are marked.

Brian Kelly wrote:

Ham brains only respond to freqs, they do not do well with channel
tags. Like on 2M. "The .360 machine". "the .195 machine", etc.

w3rv


That's because our rigs display frequencies. CBers talk about channel
numbers, TV
watchers talk about channels and so on. But broadcast AM radio talks about
frequencies, as listeners' radios are marked with frequencies (often
incorrectly as
54 to 160 KHz). The FCC talks about FM radio channel numbers, but the
public
only knows about frequencies, as that is how most all radios are marked.

(K0HB) wrote in message . com...
What convention should we use on the air to refer to the 5 new
channels in the 5MHz band? I recommend we call them Channel E1, E2,
E3, E4, and E5. Simple and easy to remember.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Or we could call them Airman Basic, Airman, Airman First Class, Senior
Airman, and Staff Sergeant.