I'm hoping it's not true. I wish conditions would improve, though. The last
time I saw a REALLY good VHF+ opening (besides 6m Es in the June and July
contests) was in 2008. I think if some of the VHF-active people in this
area saw that the bands were in good shape, they may be enticed to get on
and operate. I've noticed several calls I've logged in past contests who I
haven't heard in a while.
I'm still adding bands. I got 24 GHz working decently and worked my best
personal DX on 24 GHz with K3SIW in the August 10 GHz contest weekend last
year (107 miles). I'm working on 47 GHz now. I won't be working any 107
miles with it, but if I decide to operate close to someone who can work me
on that band, we might manage a few miles.
Meanwhile, I keep trying to make little improvements to the bands I do
have, from 50 MHz to 10 GHz. I'm putting together a couple "loaner"
transverters, too, so one of the local hams might go out and give me a few
QSO's.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Les Rayburn <les@highnoonfilm.com> wrote:
> K5QE selling off microwave gear and focusing on limited multi-operator
> contesting? I can't help but wonder if this is another bellwether of how
> weak signal operation on VHF/UHF bands are on the decline. My personal
> experience is very limited, with less than six years on the high bands. But
> I have studied the history of weak signal VHF/UHF operation and believe
> there is genuine cause for concern.
>
> In our local area, the morning nets that were common just a few years ago
> have faded away. The calling frequencies can be monitored for hours or even
> days without so much as a QSO. Contest activity, especially during the
> Sprints and January ARRL Contest is in decline too. Contacts above 432 MHz
> are difficult and 222 isn't much better.
>
> It seems to be a chicken and the egg situation--where the lack of activity
> makes it harder for stations to justify the expense and effort in
> maintaining microwave bands. And since there are fewer large stations
> operating microwave, it's harder for rovers to justify investment in these
> bands as well. The transition to digital TV as killed off most amateur
> television operation, and cell phones have cut into the usage of repeaters.
> Many in my area are unoccupied entirely.
>
> The explosion of "DC to Daylight" rigs have failed to dramatically
> increase participation in weak signal operation. New classes and categories
> have met with only limited success. Efforts of local amateurs, such as the
> "205 Group" have had some success, but they are difficult to sustain,
> especially when they are so heavily tied to the efforts of one or two
> individuals.
>
> Two areas that have shown growth are operation on the Magic Band. Six
> Meter operation has grown considerably in the past few years, especially
> with more EME activity on this band than ever before. Another area that
> seems to have momentum is ARES and Emergency Communications operation,
> including the growth of simplex nets.
>
> But it's clear that something needs to be done to help protect our
> frequency allocations, and expand the pool of weak signal operators. I
> wonder if other VHF operators share my concerns, and have suggestions on
> how to reverse the situation?
>
> Some ideas that have potential:
>
> 1.) A renewed effort by the ARRL to expand and promote the VHF-UHF Century
> Club (VUCC) Award. Elevating the prestige of this award among all amateurs,
> and enticing more HF operators to "move up" the bands has the greatest
> potential to increase our ranks.
>
> 2.) SDR Technology. A single SDR transceiver that could cover 50 MHz to
> 1296 MHz could be a real game changer. Especially if "linked" to a series
> of modular PA amps that could provide useable power levels of 20 watts or
> more could rapidly increase operation on bands like 222 and 902 were
> transverters are currently required.
>
> It would also greatly simplify station design and maintenance. It's
> doubtful that so called "appliance operators" will ever be attracted to the
> bands above 432, but we do need to simply entry into this part of the
> hobby. I've discovered that transverters are very intimidating to those who
> are new to this game.
>
> 3.) The China Syndrome. If manufacturers such as Wouxun, Baofeng, etc.
> could be contacted and encouraged to develop low cost rigs that included
> weak signal modes like USB and CW, that could have a major impact as well.
> I believe that many hams would love to try out 2 Meter SSB but don't want
> to spend $600 to do so. They also don't want to buy an older single band
> rig that may not work well, or be impossible to get repaired.
>
> But I believe that they would spend $250-$300 for a dual band rig that
> offered USB/FM/CW.
>
> If they offered rigs for the more obscure bands like 222, 902, and 1296, I
> think those would be very popular as well. Lots of market factors at work
> here too...since most of Asia doesn't have access to 222, but manufacturing
> costs have gotten low enough to make the growing US market alone viable.
> Anyone have an inside contact at one of these companies?
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 73,
>
> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> 121 Mayfair Park
> Maylene, AL 35114
> EM63nf
>
> 6M VUCC #1712
> AMSAT #38965
> Grid Bandits #222
> Southeastern VHF Society
> Central States VHF Society Life Member
> Six Club #2484
>
> Active on 6 Meters thru 1296, 10GHz & Light
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|