RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Amateur Radio > Amateur Radio General Discussion


Amateur Radio General Discussion - General discussion forum for amateur radio topics not covered by the above forums.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2017, 11:03 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Davenport,Fl.- home to me and the gators and the skeeters.
Posts: 1,345
Default Courtesy

That's the reason I move off the calling freq.
__________________
Freedom, a beautiful way of life.
Pro-107, Pro-44, Pro-94, Pro-2006, DX-440
YAESU FT-2900R, YAESU FT-101EE, RS HTX-202, ICOM IC-2AT, RS BTX-121, BAOFENG UV-5R
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2017, 11:50 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 448
Default

The HF "calling frequencies" on those pages are utterly inaccurate in my experience.

It all depends on what part of the country/world you live in.

For example, around here 7.295 is the primary AM "calling frequency" on 75m.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2017, 11:54 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 448
Default

As for using 146.52, I've done it a lot. People around here do it a fair amount. We leave pauses for people to break in.

There have been people who complained that they didn't like to monitor 52 because of the ragchew. But those very same people NEVER EVER answer any transient motorist or some other CQ on 52. (I know because I monitor 52 all the time.) Only use regular ragchewers answer CQs. Why would they "monitor" if they never answer a CQ? It's obvious they just like to be "channel cops" and so we don't care about their opinion. Their actions betray them. So, we just filed that in the "whatever" folder and do what we do.

Bottom line: use 52 to ragchew, just leave room for breaking stations.

That's my take on it. If you disagree fine, but don't waste your time complaining to me about it.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2017, 6:08 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4long View Post
As for using 146.52, I've done it a lot. People around here do it a fair amount. We leave pauses for people to break in.

There have been people who complained that they didn't like to monitor 52 because of the ragchew. But those very same people NEVER EVER answer any transient motorist or some other CQ on 52. (I know because I monitor 52 all the time.) Only use regular ragchewers answer CQs. Why would they "monitor" if they never answer a CQ? It's obvious they just like to be "channel cops" and so we don't care about their opinion. Their actions betray them. So, we just filed that in the "whatever" folder and do what we do.

Bottom line: use 52 to ragchew, just leave room for breaking stations.

That's my take on it. If you disagree fine, but don't waste your time complaining to me about it.
Good point! A lot of hams also don't respond to other hams who say they are "listening" on repeaters! I have found that one will get WAY more responses on .52 (or on repeaters) if they just come on asking for a radio check!
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2017, 10:01 PM
robertmac's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

That might be in your area, not in mine. As I stated earlier, that is where CB went down the tubes and became a free for all. Just like the bunch on 3840.


Encouraging proper use of two-way radio spectrum including CB.

Last edited by robertmac; 03-01-2017 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 8:24 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Hammond, IN
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpaceMann View Post
Good point! A lot of hams also don't respond to other hams who say they are "listening" on repeaters! I have found that one will get WAY more responses on .52 (or on repeaters) if they just come on asking for a radio check!
There is one ham in my area who calls for a "radio check" several times a day. He has been doing this for the three years I've known him:
"This is KC9xyz standing by for a radio check."

Occasionally I will reply to him with:
"KC9xyz here is N4GIX. Tony, I've counted and see that I still have all my radios! Apparently you haven't lost yours either 'cause I just heard you call..."

Unfortunately the gentle hint hasn't penetrated yet.
__________________
Bill
N4GIX - Ham / WQWU626 - GMRS
VV-898, TK-840(N), 2xTYT-7800, 2xUV5R v2+, HP1, BCD436HP, TMV7A, Ritron RRX-450 Repeater, MD-380, XPR7550, 2xCS800, Bridgecom BCR-40U Repeater, Elecraft KX3 + PX3
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:00 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Davenport,Fl.- home to me and the gators and the skeeters.
Posts: 1,345
Default

We use to say we didn't accept "radio checks" because they were "non negotiable". lol
__________________
Freedom, a beautiful way of life.
Pro-107, Pro-44, Pro-94, Pro-2006, DX-440
YAESU FT-2900R, YAESU FT-101EE, RS HTX-202, ICOM IC-2AT, RS BTX-121, BAOFENG UV-5R
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:48 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC4RAF View Post
We use to say we didn't accept "radio checks" because they were "non negotiable". lol
Oh, I like that! Maybe better that "radio czechs?"
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2017, 3:49 PM
Coyote-Frostbyte's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Colorado, New Mexico
Posts: 410
Default

You know, personally I think "Radio Check" is great
.
Its sort of a Half CQ. A full CQ seems to convey the impression you want to hold a long conversation- and my impression when hearing one is "do I have the time or interest in talking that much?" But that call for a "check" can be answer'd in a few words-- which then often leads into that conversation--
.
...Ahhhhh !..... so many very memorable chats started with my answering; "can anyone give me a signal report?."
.
Want a good example?-- try a simple "can I get a radio check?' on CB channel 19.......
.
Well, perhaps on CB that was not a good example- could be its the female voice that helps........
.
.
.................................................C F

Last edited by Coyote-Frostbyte; 03-02-2017 at 3:53 PM.. Reason: the pixies are dancing on my keyboard
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:12 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N4GIX View Post
There is one ham in my area who calls for a "radio check" several times a day. He has been doing this for the three years I've known him:
"This is KC9xyz standing by for a radio check."

Occasionally I will reply to him with:
"KC9xyz here is N4GIX. Tony, I've counted and see that I still have all my radios! Apparently you haven't lost yours either 'cause I just heard you call..."

Unfortunately the gentle hint hasn't penetrated yet.
Well at least you didn't say "The check is in the mail!"
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:18 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote-Frostbyte View Post
You know, personally I think "Radio Check" is great
.
Its sort of a Half CQ. A full CQ seems to convey the impression you want to hold a long conversation- and my impression when hearing one is "do I have the time or interest in talking that much?" But that call for a "check" can be answer'd in a few words-- which then often leads into that conversation--
.
...Ahhhhh !..... so many very memorable chats started with my answering; "can anyone give me a signal report?."
.
Want a good example?-- try a simple "can I get a radio check?' on CB channel 19.......
.
Well, perhaps on CB that was not a good example- could be its the female voice that helps........
.
.
.................................................C F
Yeah, just come on with a female voice and you're bound to get a lot of responses! I think when one asks for a "radio check", it appeals to a ham's sense of wanting to help, or to just "lend a hand" to another ham!
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:23 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: where they make the cheese
Posts: 123
Default

when i hear "looking for a radio check" i think to myself "the 10-4 is strong in that one"

/me waits for the fish slap
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 2:42 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Hammond, IN
Posts: 1,298
Default

The local marina is owned by the city, and they have several guards who have their own talk group on the Lake County Consolidated system. Their supervisor calls for a check ever hour from each of the three guards on duty. How he calls them is excessively annoying. Put on your best southern drawl and say out loud:

"Gate 1 raaaadio check-check-check" (the last three are staccato and said fast)

Every time I'd hear him it made me want to go find him and b*tch slap him!
__________________
Bill
N4GIX - Ham / WQWU626 - GMRS
VV-898, TK-840(N), 2xTYT-7800, 2xUV5R v2+, HP1, BCD436HP, TMV7A, Ritron RRX-450 Repeater, MD-380, XPR7550, 2xCS800, Bridgecom BCR-40U Repeater, Elecraft KX3 + PX3
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 1:35 PM
W7DPS's Avatar
Newbie
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Astoria, OR
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertmac View Post
So they are no longer calling frequencies? Then let's do away with that terminology. Call them hang out frequencies. This is the way CB went to pot years ago when we had designated monitoring frequencies and talking frequencies. Then people started to do what ever they wanted. It drove away those wanting to monitor for calls when people started to use monitoring frequencies for talking. One would think with all the frequencies available, we could designate a calling frequency and all others as talking. Not sure what is so hard with that?

Encouraging proper use of two-way radio spectrum including CB.
Your post brings back fond memories of Vallejo, California in 1972. It was 5 years before "Smokey and the Bandit" which started the big CB craze, and we only had 23 channels available. Channel 20 was the Call Channel monitored by everyone in that town. You called whoever you were looking for, and if they answered you would move off to another channel. If you didn't move off, someone would gently remind you that you were being a "bucket-mouth" on the Call Channel. It was a good example of Common Courtesy, which seems to have been lost in some areas of the country these days.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 7:30 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Default

I'd rather listen to people talking long hours in the calling freq. than a deafening silence especially when doing long drives.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 10:02 PM
robertmac's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

But sometimes the deafening silence is better than the crap that is discussed on the calling frequency. Which often sounds, unfortunately, like 19.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 10:32 PM
Otto's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertmac View Post
But sometimes the deafening silence is better than the crap that is discussed on the calling frequency. Which often sounds, unfortunately, like 19.


If you don't like the QSO on a particular frequency, and prefer silence, you should just spin the VFO, or turn the radio off.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2017, 10:28 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Hammond, IN
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post
If you don't like the QSO on a particular frequency, and prefer silence, you should just spin the VFO, or turn the radio off.
Amen brother!
__________________
Bill
N4GIX - Ham / WQWU626 - GMRS
VV-898, TK-840(N), 2xTYT-7800, 2xUV5R v2+, HP1, BCD436HP, TMV7A, Ritron RRX-450 Repeater, MD-380, XPR7550, 2xCS800, Bridgecom BCR-40U Repeater, Elecraft KX3 + PX3
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 03-24-2017, 12:32 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 14.020 MHz @ 30 wpm
Posts: 5,088
Default

I'm a bit late to the party, perhaps, but having been a ham for about 40 years, I remember a few things that don't seem to be so anymore. Maybe someone else can shed some light...

Back in the 70's, 146.52 was referred to as the "National Simplex Frequency", as was 446.0. Nothing about them being "calling frequencies". When did that change come about? I don't remember any announcements, they just sort of evolved into "calling frequencies", in my estimation by someone who had no clue as to the history behind them.

Some of the conflict may simply be a batch of guys who remember what it used to be.
__________________
12 volt radios are for wimps. Real radios can kill you.

Last edited by zz0468; 03-24-2017 at 12:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 03-24-2017, 2:59 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
I'm a bit late to the party, perhaps, but having been a ham for about 40 years, I remember a few things that don't seem to be so anymore. Maybe someone else can shed some light...

Back in the 70's, 146.52 was referred to as the "National Simplex Frequency", as was 446.0. Nothing about them being "calling frequencies". When did that change come about? I don't remember any announcements, they just sort of evolved into "calling frequencies", in my estimation by someone who had no clue as to the history behind them.

Some of the conflict may simply be a batch of guys who remember what it used to be.
Interesting point. Do you remember if there were long conversations on those frequencies back then?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions