A common rover frequency has it's pros and it's cons .. for example if
one frequency is in use by a number of rovers in the same general
area, then you need to have a protocol to move off the rover freq to
coordinate .. so now you need two freqs or coordinate on a different
band. If the fixed op checks your freq but you're off working the last
guy on 6/222/432 he often doesn't hang around and wait.
Back in the early 2000s when W3IY was active, he had all the ops in
the mid-atlantic trained to listen for him on .247. Since I've been
piloting the Jitney it's been hard to get more than a handful of guys
to pay attention to .247 (though those that do work us on 10 bands in
multiple grids).
Personally, I think self-spotting should be allowed for rovers ..
everyone knows where all the fixed stations are, but for the rovers
it's like playing hide and seek. You can assume that a rover is *not*
going to be on-schedule past the start time (and maybe not even then),
so schedules are only guidance. Propagation, equipment, and operating
skill will determine whether a contact is completed, whether there's
traffic on I-95 will be less of an issue :) and roving would be a lot
less frustrating (especially given the time/$$$/energy invested). Plus
it would make roving attractive to new guys .. nothing motivates a
newbie like a steady stream of QSOs ..
de w1rt/john
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM, <specrisk@aol.com> wrote:
>
> To the list- I do not know whether this concept has been discussed before
> but I wonder if it would be a easy way for a fixed or portable operator could
> occasional check this frequency (What ever frequency could or would be
> chosen) to see if rovers are within range. It could be on multiple bands but
> I would think just one band would probably be adequate. Perhaps 144.270 or
> 275 or higher by spacing of say 10 KHz used in the same fashion as the
> Microwave liason frequency of 144.260 is used during the 10 GHz contest. In
> that contest stations meet on 144.260 and QSY up or down usually in 10 KHz
> intervals. It is hard enough to find rovers because of pointing problems. I
> know there have been some sophisticated methods of locating them discussed
> but sometimes simplicity works well. This method may be in use already for
> VHF contests but I am not aware of it. I suspect some of the rovers with MW
> capability use 144. 260 in this fashion but there are rovers with the 3 or 4
> lower band
> s that might not use 144.260. I wonder if there was consensus on a "Rover"
> specific frequency that it would net more activity. There could be a "low
> end" frequency and perhaps an FM upper band alternative?
> George, W1JHR
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|