VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] why I think multi/multi rovers would be a goodidea...

To: "Bruce Richardson" <w9fz@w9fz.com>,<vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] why I think multi/multi rovers would be a goodidea...
From: "Eric Smith" <kb7dqh@donobi.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:10:58 -0700
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Buried in the APRS thread and left more or less intact
below are sound arguements for allowing multi/multi rover
operations...

The "disappearance" factor suddenly becomes a non-issue if
the "lowband" ops keep CQ'ing and working the rate up while
the "highband/microwave" op then has the time to work the
microwave equipped fixed and rover stations within range.  
Singleop "big guns" can then easily locate the multi/multi
rover as all his radios start making noise, and can simply
"run the bands" as fast as he can, then get back to the
task of digging out the weak ones or chasing grids on 6
meters if open, etc...

Gets interesting "run-and-gun" at 903 and above... the
doppler can really hash up voice comms, but CW should work
OK...

Calling CQ on 10 Ghz could get you the "worked all radar
detectors" award and slower vehicles ahead:-)

Eric
KB7DQH

  Also, as rovers
> include more
> microwave bands which, generally, require more time
> (fiddle
> factor) per QSO, the rover disappears off of their
> pre-announced
> rover freq for longer and longer periods which makes the
> rover
> un-findable.  When I'm off on a high band and I hear
> stations
> calling on "my" freq, I feel bad that I can't let them
> know that
> I'll be right back but I can't let go of the dish at that
> moment
> in the wind :-) .
>
> Just got off the local 2m simplex ragchew freq and
> discussed the
> APRS topic with a prominent Twin Cities fixed station.
>  He'd just
> as soon not go down this road because of the competition
> idea,
> rovers in this region stay to their pre-announced
> schedules and
> freqs pretty well, and most of all, he finds that even
> well
> announced rovers are often busy off of "their" freqs
> working the
> high bands so APRS would just have fixed stations calling
> to a
> rover who couldn't anwer right then.
> 
> I'm so glad to have an input this time around--unlike the
> Rover
> rule changes in the early to mid-90's.
> 
> Keep the discussion going!
> 
> 73
> Bruce Richardson W9FZ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>