Roger - many "locals" have told me their 160M antenna system only tunes the
CW section and they cannot even go above 1840 their antenna is so narrow
banded.
Even though I only spend a few hours on 160M phone each year, I have added
some relays to remotely short out turns of L matching network at the base,
to let me QSY easily. Few "ordinary" folks will go to such effort.
I don't have a big problem with phone contest taking the whole bandwidth on
the phone contest weekends and CW taking the whole bandwidth on the CW
contest weekends.
I did find SSB stuff all the way up to 1997kc. I thought about running
right at/below 2000kc.
I note in ARRL 160M late last year and CQ 160M CW early this year, the
phone net guys who used to camp out on "their frequency (which can be as
low as 1850)" and chase CW guys away, they seemed to be more cooperative
this year. As a result there was a lot less crowding and it was a lot
easier to work DX in the 160M CW events.. I'd like to think the CW-only ops
can be cooperative too.
Tim N3QE
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:
> I enjoy contests but...
>
>
> This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW
> activity or attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.
>
> Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB
> contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts
> made in the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and
> should all comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full
> of SSB whereas the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?
>
>
> I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and
> ARRL that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of
> 1820kHz dial frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime'
> international frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz
> for many countries. The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally.
> Neither CQ nor ARRL have treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up
> with any alternative.
>
> Why not?
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|