I would get excited if I worked a scheduled QSO on
432. I must be a real little pistol.
73s John NE0P
--- Ed Kucharski <k3dne@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Dave,
> Congrats on the "New Grandpa Dave" status!
> Oops! You're right (as well as a couple of others
> that responded to my
> comment). I interpreted Fred's comment
> incorrectly. I was thinking more
> about the random vs. scheduled concept than as a
> function of
> frequency. He did state VHF - UHF random contacts
> and I was thinking
> lower microwave contacts (903 - 3456 in my case).
> Certainly, making random
> contacts on the microwave bands (even the lower
> microwave bands) are more
> difficult (loud locals the exception) than with
> scheduled contacts in this
> range. Random contacts on VHF and UHF (50 - 432)
> are even less technically
> challenging - although I still get excited when I
> work a random 500+ mile
> QSO on 222 or 432.
> 73,
> Ed K3DNE
>
>
>
>
>
> At 02:22 AM 2/28/2004 +0000, David Olean wrote:
> >Ed,
> > I have to agree with Mr. Lass. I would not
> compare a scheduled 5 or 10
> >GHz rover contact with a random VHF contact unless
> my frequency accuracy
> >was +/- 30 kHz on 144 depending on what time of day
> it was, and my beamwidth
> >on 144 was 2 degrees or less. I had to true up the
> tower to make sure my 10
> >GHz beamwidth was including the horizon. I didn't
> do that on the two meter
> >beam. Now add the same problem on the other end
> and there ain't no way I
> >would say that a random VHF or UHF contact is the
> same as one of these
> >rover skeds. We are not even talking about the
> perceived path loss variation
> >between bands either. Power output? The situation
> may be a little better on
> >the lower microwave bands, but my 3456 beamwidth is
> under 3 degrees too.
> > Maybe if the 10 GHz rover was very close by,
> you could say it was easy,
> >but most contacts we make are pretty long haul. If
> it was easy on
> >microwaves, it would not be half the fun!
> >73
> >Dave K1WHS
> >(New Grandpa Dave)
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ed Kucharski" <k3dne@adelphia.net>
> >To: "Fred Lass" <felasstic@yahoo.com>;
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:19 PM
> >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Grid circling time
> limit problem....possible
> >solution.
> >
> >
> > > At 01:12 PM 2/27/2004 -0800, Fred Lass wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I do not see a problem with a large M/M group
> sending a microwave rover
> >to
> > > >a distant grid square. The technical challenge
> of such QSO's are far
> > > >greater than random VHF or UHF contacts.
> > > >
> > > >73, Fred K2TR
> > >
> > > Neither do I. As long as that rover QSO's with
> other stations in ADDITION
> > > to the "large M/M group" and any associated
> rovers who sent that microwave
> > > rover out to the distant grid square(s). I
> don't see the technical
> > > challenge being greater than random VHF or UHF
> contacts however. Random
> > > QSO's most certainly are more challenging than
> pre-arranged (scheduled)
> >QSO's.
> > > 73,
> > > Ed K3DNE
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > >
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|