Mike,
All interesting view points. I do wonder if we are asking the wrong
question, however. In our VHF contesting group we have been discussing the
"6m problem" for some time now beginning long before the advent of FT8. It
has been the case for some time now that if 6m is open, the upper bands
starting with 2m see a significant decrease in activity. FT8 simply has
accelerated the trend.
So maybe the question isn't, "Are SSB and CW compatible with FT8?" Maybe
the question is, "Should 6m be included in VHF contesting?" I understand
this is a long standing debate.
- All modern HF rigs include 6m - if you have an HF rig you are ready
with another antenna to contest on 6m as it is just another choice on the
band switch. If you are set up for HF FT8 you are set up for 6m FT8. Not so
with 2m and above with the exception of the FT 8xx type of transceivers
- 6m probably has more in common with 10m than it has with 2m. A
contest for 6 & 10 might be an interesting event. Two meters would then be
the "low band" for VHF contesting.
Not wanting to write and you not wanting to read a dissertation, I will
leave it at that, To cure the patient one needs the correct diagnosis.
The problem we are seeing is the decrease in activity 2m and up. While FT8
may be exacerbating the problem, I am not convinced it is the root or only
cause of the problem at hand.
John
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mike H <mph@sportscliche.com> wrote:
> Good writeup, but I’m not at all pessimistic. Give it time. 2m will again
> be the band of choice in January VHF once people realize they can use FT8
> there, specifically the national calling frequency of 144.174. No need to
> do anything to the WSJT-X software as custom 13 character free-form
> messages are already available for that purpose, eg. “QSY 50313” would do
> the trick. And don’t forget the availability of chat rooms during VHF
> contests to help folks find each other.
>
> I think the primary reason ops were hanging out on 6m FT8 was for the
> chance to score a quick multiplier when the freak, short-lived Es pops up.
> There were quite a few of these in the recent January contest. Very
> doubtful these could be exploited with traditional analog modes. The best
> contesters are going to use all available tools to maximize their scores
> and having another one in the arsenal simply makes things more interesting.
> Exciting times ahead, yes, even on the higher bands.
> -FKO
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:43 PM, James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > The results writeup for the January 2019 VHF Contest are now on line:
> >
> > <
> https://contests.arrl.org/ContestResults/2019/Jan-VHF-2019-FinalFullResults.pdf
> >
> >
> > The digital modes, in particular FT8, played a major role in the
> January contest, increasing the logs submitted significantly. But the
> overall QSOs made in the contest remained the same. So, those additional
> digital QSOs came from the higher bands. I think this is not good. Please
> read my comments on this in the writeup and think about what it means for
> the future of VHF contesting, if you like that future, and what can be done
> to address the continued erosion of the bands above 144MHz in contesting.
> >
> > Thanks for all who participated in the January contest. - Duffey KK6MC
> >
> >
> > James Duffey KK6MC
> > Cedar Crest NM
> > _._,_._,_
> > Groups.io Links:
> > You receive all messages sent to this group.
> >
> > View/Reply Online (#569) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This
> Topic | New Topic
> >
> > Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [
> mph@sportscliche.com]
> >
> > _._,_._,_
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|