Marshall,
Very helpful and I think I better understand the issue. Yes, good ops can
really go as long as there are two conditions that are being met:
1. Band conditions support the high q-rate
2. There is a large pool of search and pounce stations available to
"make the call."
In the pre-FT8 days everyone had a role to play and those roles were pretty
much known. Those who did not know CW had SSB as their only choice and
would dutifully tune up and down the band, looking for run stations to
contact.
FT8 and soon FT4 have/will change all of that as there is now an
alternative to SSB. While condition 1 might be met (good band opening)
condition 2 (lots of S&P operators) might not be true.
It would be interesting to know the run rate for the 100-500 watt S&P
stations on which the big guns depend for their contacts. My hunch is it
does not approach 150-200 q's /hr. It could well be for them (me, when I
am at home) going to FT8 makes logical sense. And therein may lie the rub
as every S&P station that goes to FT8 is one less station for a SSB big gun
to work. Keeping S&P stations on SSB might require some thought as to how
to make it more productive form them to improve their score while staying
on SSB. S&P is hard and if a little pistol can do almost as well ( not
sure if that is true or if there is any data one way or the other) by going
to FT8 isn't that the logical move for them?
Interesting times in which we live. Technology changes are always a
challenge and figuring out how the new and the old mess together is top of
the list once the new technology has been around a while.
John
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 6:49 PM Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com> wrote:
> Hello to all....There is no doubt that Jay-W9RM is a better operator
> than I am. However, the rates that he quotes are from an HF contest
> with its phony signal reports. I cannot conceive that anyone could run
> 400+ an hour on VHF, even when band conditions are really good because
> we have to pass GRIDS as our signal report. Grids cannot be faked and
> cannot be filled in by the logging software.
>
> Jay operated on 6M here in 2010 and helped set a record for contacts,
> grids, and score for the multi-op class of stations that still stands
> today. He is a VERY good operator. Other very good operators who have
> operated from here are Jason-N5NU and George-NR5M. Both of them have
> run rates in the 225 per hour range when the band is wide open.
> Furthermore, they can do this for hours at a time, until they just have
> to have a break.
>
> When I am running good, I can run something like 150+ per hour for
> several hours at a time. At some point, I just have to have a potty
> break. SO, I would say that run rates of 150 to 225 could be expected
> on SSB when then band is really open. The absolute maximum that you can
> get on FT8 is 60 per hour....and in practice, you won't get that. No
> one really knows what can be done on FT4.
>
> What we have done is to build up a completely separate station for FT8.
> We can use that to monitor 50.313 for FT8 openings. If there is not much
> going on otherwise, we can try for some FT8 QSOs. IF FT8 is not doing
> anything, we can run the main station on 50.260 for MSK144 meteor
> scatter contacts. That strategy seems to work fairly well for us.
> NOTE: The two stations are interlocked, so that only one of them can
> work at the same time.
>
> We hope to see everyone in the June ARRL contest and in the July CQ WW
> contest. GL to all.....
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
>
> On 5/2/2019 3:45 PM, Jay RM wrote:
> > During a halfway decent 6M contest Es opening, 100/hr on SSB is not a
> very
> > high rate, even averaged over a entire hour. On HF, 100/hr is even less
> > impressive. The secret is, the Q's need to BE there. High rate is both
> > operator skill and the capability of the band to SUPPORT the operators
> > skill level. That's why some guys lament the flood of operators leaving
> > SSB for other modes. They (we...) like to run rate - that's what we do.
> > If the band isn't capable of supporting the rate they (we,,,) can run, it
> > lessens the contest 'experience'.
> >
> > For what it's worth (not much, really), in a June VHF test, in a year
> with
> > Es openings that last for over an hour to areas with good population
> > density, I ALWAYS have at least one run approaching (if not exceeding)
> > 200/hr, for the entire hour - very occasionally, more then that if I
> have a
> > multiple direction opening. You will find that this is nothing special
> > amongst the top-10 scorers in SOLP, SOHP and multi categories.
> >
> > How high can SSB rate get ? In a contest with a short exchange and with
> > SUPPORTIVE BAND CONDITIONS, it appears the top end to SSB rate is in the
> > mid-400's - at least, that appears to be the maximum which has been
> > recorded (going by memory from data probably 10 years old - maybe higher
> > now ? ). My personal record hour was set in a ARRL Phone DX Contest,
> from
> > the DX side in either 1981 or 1982 on 20M. That number was 423 - the
> first
> > hour of the contest. What's funny is that the team had decided to switch
> > ops every hour for the first 4. I went first by lottery. The 2nd hour
> op,
> > K9MK, did a 425, beating me by 2 Q's :) Bummer :)
> >
> > I have spent my ham radio life contesting. Both on HF and VHF. Most
> often
> > it was as a 'hired gun' at a multi-op station. So, I have had access to
> > some of the best hardware available. But, in the last 6-7 years, all my
> > contesting on VHF has been done from my home station with modest
> (compared
> > to my multi-op days) hardware.
> >
> > W9RM
> >
> > Keith J Morehouse
> > Managing Partner
> > Calmesa Partners G.P.
> > Olathe, CO
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:03 PM John Kludt <johnnykludt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Someone please enlighten me. I would like to see your *best *rate
> (q/hr)
> >> by band and your region of the country. I would also like to see your
> >> *average * (q/hr) by band and your region of the country. I am not so
> >> interested in your *burst* rate: those three or four or five Q's you
> ripped
> >> off in really quick succession that calculated out to a rate of "100
> q/hr."
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:07 PM ww8rr@charter.net <ww8rr@charter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> And....after Joe finished his presentation at this past weekend's
> VHF-UHF
> >>> Super Conference in Stearling, VA a lively discussion ensued during the
> >> Q&A
> >>> session ( imagine that!) First functioning release of FT4 won't take
> >> place
> >>> until sometime after CQWW VHF contest now.RonWW8RRSent from my Samsung
> S4
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: 04/29/2019 2:09 PM (GMT-05:00)
> >>> To: Brian Dickman <brian.dickman@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: VHF Contesting <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 mode
> >>>
> >>> One of the REALLY handy features for rovers is that it doesn't
> >>> requireprecision clock settings, there is no standard time cycle. That
> >>> means ifI'm in an area with no cell service I can still jump on even
> if I
> >>> haveclock skew.Also, the version being released soon has a kill switch
> >> for
> >>> right beforethe June VHF contest. They don't feel it will be ready to
> go
> >>> for thiscontest season so it'll cease to function at the beginning of
> >>> June.Sean WA1TEOn Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Brian Dickman <
> >>> brian.dickman@gmail.com>wrote:> Since the topic hasn't appeared on
> this
> >>> list yet, I figured it would be a> good idea to make folks here aware
> of
> >>> the pending WSJT FT4 mode in case> they hadn't seen it already.>> The
> >>> tl;dr:> * 2.5X faster than FT8> * Same contesting features as FT8> *
> >>> Automatic search and pounce mode> * 144.170MHz proposed 2m frequency>>
> To
> >>> read more, here's a couple links:>> *>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/faster-more-contest-friendly-ft4-digital-protocol-to-debut-in-a-week
> >>> * http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf> *>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.southgatearc.org/news/2019/april/video-of-ft4-talk-by-joe-taylor-k1jt.htm#.XMc36OhKhaQ
> >>> (video> of a club talk Joe Taylor made about FT4)>> Notable dates:>> •
> >>> April 29: Second announcement, with links to downloadable installation>
> >>> packages> for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5> • May 9, 0000 – 0100 UTC: FT4 practice
> >>> session, 7.090 MHz> • May 14, 0000 – 0100 UTC: FT4 practice session,
> >> 7.090
> >>> MHz> • June 5, 0000 – 0100 UTC: FT4 practice session, 7.090 MHz (if
> >>> needed)> • July 15: General Availability (GA) release of WSJT-X 2.1.0>>
> >> An
> >>> RC version is already available now for testing. In other words, you
> get>
> >>> to juggle another new digital mode for this summer's contest season!>>
> >> As I
> >>> mentioned earlier, the proposed 2m frequency is 144.170MHz (USB dial>
> >>> frequency). It's inevitable that this becomes as popular; if not more>
> >>> popular than FT8 for contests. You would still need FT8 to dig out
> >> really>
> >>> weak signals, but for everyone that bangs into your station at -10db
> and>
> >>> higher, FT4 is a no brainer given the potentially higher QSO/hr
> count.>>
> >> If
> >>> you have direct feedback for the developers, especially about the>
> >>> frequency selection, I suggest you send that to the wsjt-devel mailing
> >>> list> rather than here.>> 73,> --> Brian AF7MD>
> >>> _______________________________________________> VHFcontesting mailing
> >>> list> VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >>> _______________________________________________VHFcontesting
> >>> mailing listVHFcontesting@contesting.comhttp://
> >>> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|