I run up to 10 GHz while in motion (I have a 10GHz omni slot) and the "hash"
begins on 432 from multipath, but I find that it's acceptable through 3GHz
with no real trouble. In fact I think it's worse on 432 often than on 3
GHz, but you do have to tune a little for doppler on 3 GHz ;-) ... There's
no real immunity from it on CW either. There is on FM, but there's other
problems there.
I run a scheme that has push-button band changes and a single-button to log
someone on a band and I routinely run the bands with someone while in
motion, even as a single-op rover.
Steve, N5AC
-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 22:11
To: Bruce Richardson; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] why I think multi/multi rovers would be a
goodidea...
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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|