Hi Ken
You are correct that I have mentioned differences between HF and VHF
contests in past columns but I have never devoted an entire column to the
subject so even with the limited searching tools available at the ARRL
periodical search I too am unable to find an example.
However you have covered the subject quite well.
The problem in HF contests is finding stations in heavy QRM. So there are
important tradeoffs between Cqing, search and pounce S&P, and how long you
should call in a pileup before you go away and come back later [with the DX
station still there hopefully]. With VHF contests there is QRM only on 6 and
2 and for the most part only on 6. And that QRM is vastly less than in an HF
contest where you must run S1 stations at better than 60 an hour in S9+20dB
QRM and you basically never run out of people to work. The major problem on
VHF is hearing stations and getting them to hear you. This problem is
acerbated by pointing problems - VHF beams have very narrow beamwidths - and
the fact that many VHF stations hear very poorly whether because of inferior
receivers, high system losses and/or local noise [the latter is a real
problem at many urban and semi-urban locations including mine]. Rate is much
less on VHF than HF. Activity on HF has reached the point where the winners
have to average close to 1 Q per minute in order to be competitive. For
instance KE3Q at WP3R in the HF Sweepstakes routinely *averages* well over
100 Q/hr even though the exchange contains 4 different pieces of information
two of which cannot be guessed or looked up in Buckmaster after the contest.
Even someone like K1TEO who is a good operator with a good station in a good
geographic location can't maintain anything close to that rate.
Certain common VHF practices like making schedules before the contest are
looked upon as unethical by many but as you say not all HF contesters. For
instance manufactured contacts like grid circling and captive roving are
unheard of on HF. For a discussion of other differences in ethics see the
August 2008 World Above 50 MHz. Outside of telling others by reflector that
you will be active during a VHF contest especially if you are in an odd
direction from populated areas [like FN01 or FM25 here on the East coast -
fill in you own grids for other areas] and for rovers when in what grids, I
also frown on making analog [cw/ssb] schedules before the contest. But what
about digital WSJT modes? Yes MAP65 and its single axis variant will allow
you to find JT65 signals without schedules but these are far from trivial to
implement and where does that leave the little guy with a single yagi and a
few hundred watts? For meteors either everyone congregates on the calling
frequencies or no one works anything. In my opinion the nature of the mode
is such that schedules are unavoidable whether the VUAC believes so or not.
But that is a discussion for another time.
The bottom line is that there are many similarities between HF and VHF
contests but there are also differences. As you have said, there are lots of
different opinions out there and likely no one set of opinions is completely
right or wrong.
73 Gene W3ZZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth E. Harker [mailto:kenharker@kenharker.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 12:04 PM
To: VHF Contesting
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Contesting differences: VHF and HF
Chet,
Gene W3ZZ had a good summary of this in one of his World Above 50 MHz
columns in QST (which I have been trying to find through the ARRL's
periodical search tool and I'm turning up blanks).
Some of the main differences between VHF and HF contesting/operations
boil down to how much more difficult it is to find and contact other
stations on VHF than on HF, and how that changes operating behavior. On
VHF, the effective range of a modest station is much smaller geographic
footprint on 144 MHz and up than it is on, say, 20 meters. Antennas tend to
be much higher gain with sharper patterns, such that two stations within
range are less likely to hear each other unless their antennas are pointed
in the right directions. This is much more important for long distance
contacts. As a result of these differences, stations (a) concentrate on a
smaller range of frequencies, maybe even one "calling frequency" for all
contacts on a band, and (b) there is more widespread use of skeds to
coordinate contacts, especially on long distance meteor scatter and EME
work. Gene's article in QST states this much better than I can - perhaps he
can refresh our memory on the month it appeared in QST?
For an HF contester, a critical part of the QSO making process is
finding the other station, and one must make decisions about whether to call
CQ or S&P, which way to turn the antenna or which antenna to use, when to
move frequencies/bands if the QRM is too bad or propagation changes, etc.
Pre-arranged skeds are basically never used in my experience. On VHF+, top
operators of course do call CQ, tune the bands, and turn/switch the antennas
in an effort to find other stations to work, look for unusual openings, etc.
But, it's generally perceived as a lot more work for fewer contacts in the
log. There are some who would prefer to use real-time skeds to find the
other stations to work, and rely on the RF from their station to merely
confirm that a communications path between the two stations exists, which in
many marginal path contacts can be a lot of work in and of itself.
To those with considerable HF contesting experience, this is "internet
contesting" as much as it is "radio contesting".
Not all VHF contesters are in the pro-real-time-skeds camp, and not all
HF contesters would necessarily object if VHF contesting went in that
direction. As with everything else, there are a lot of opinions out there.
There is however, a huge cultural gap between the two camps in the debate,
and they often talk past each other. Referring to debate opponents as
"HF'ers" could be an effort to minimalize their perceived credibility in the
debate, for example.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:38:22PM -0400, Chet, N8RA wrote:
> Sometimes in discussions on this contesting reflector I've seen
> statements of "like HF'ers" and I do not know what that means.
>
> Can someone explain to me what is implied by that term so that I can
> better appreciate the reference?
> Some specific examples of the differences would be quite helpful.
> Off-line is OK, and if so, I will respect your confidentiality.
>
> Thanks and 73,
>
> Chet, N8RA
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|