Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments on proposed VHF+ rules changes

[Robert Cumming <w2bzy@cfl.rr.com>]

Ken

Agreed that contacts between two rovers over a 200 meter path is not a 
challenge.

Most microwave contacts that I have made during the various contests are at 
least over a 10 mile path and usually result in "running the bands" with 
someone in the same Grid or nearby grid.  I've spent 15 minutes and more on 
these QSOs when conditions are poor (or even 15-20 minutes and no QSO).  As 
to those contacts involving breaking a pileup the reward is usually another 
multiplier (that's what piles on the points) and yes. if time permits I'll 
spend the time in the pileup for the multiplier.  I can't tell how much 
time I've spent chasing far away grids on meteor scatter (all this for 
another new grid).

I spend as much time making QSOs on any band when conditions are not 
good.  But on the average the Q's per minute come easier on 6 and 2 meters 
than those on 432 and up.  I really wish more ops were on 222 - that is one 
of the best tropo bands we have.  When tropo conditions across the gulf 
into Texas or up the East Coast are good, running the bands from 50-1296 is 
just as easy as working the locals -mostly however, this isn't the case.

Perhaps the answer is a combination of distance to frequency - I have no 
problems counting contacts outside the surrounding  grid squares higher 
than those in the same or next grid but this kills us down here on the 
Florida peninsula where the grids outside the next one are under 
water.  Here in EL98 there are only 4 adjacent grid squares (EL87, 88, 89 
97 and 99).  Moving out further than two grids makes it worse.  We lose EL 
76, 77 and 85 to the water and there is only one active ham (KE4YYD) on 6M, 
2M and 70Cm in that grid).  Since the passing of K2RTH in EL95 that is a 
real tough grid to find active during the contests (Bruce was active on 50, 
144, 222, 432 and 1296 and his signals are missed).   Up in the Northeast I 
had a similar problem with Water grids next to FN30 but the number of 
active stations made it a moot point.

Bob Cumming
W2BZY




      At 04:18 PM 3/8/2004 -0600, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:57:32PM -0500, Robert Cumming wrote:
> >
> > As to the points/contact, contacts on the microwave bands require much 
> more
> > time and effort than those on 6M or 2M.
>
> This is an often unchallenged assumption.  I think it needs to be examined
> more closely.
>
> Is a 2.3 GHz contact made between two rovers 200 meters apart from one
> another really harder to complete than an uncheduled 1,500 mile two meter
> meteor scatter contact?  Or breaking a huge pileup on 50.103 MHz to HK3?
> What about working LU1VK/QRP on TEP?  Or a tropoducting QSO on 222 MHz
> with the other station just at the noise floor?
>
> _Every_ band has its limitations and challenges.  Arbitrarily rewarding
> difficult 2.3 GHz QSOs at 8x the value of difficult 50 MHz QSOs is
> just that - arbitrary.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"      kharker@cs.utexas.edu
> University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
> Department of the Computer Sciences          Central Texas DX & Contest Club
> Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
> Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA            http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting