VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] 2019 January VHF Contest Results on Line

To: w9sz.zack@gmail.com, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 2019 January VHF Contest Results on Line
From: John Young via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Reply-to: nosigma@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 01:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Zack
Good points. FT8 may not be useful above 1296 without adding some significant 
bandwidth as frequency goes up.  If it could be made to work up there it 
provides an enticing opportunity for those without CW skills to get more from 
their signal than just phone.  Getting outside my experience so perhaps others 
could chime in on its practicality IF the underlying  premise of boosting qso 
points on the high bands and dropping FT8 points on 220 and 432 gets any 
traction.

73
John
KM4KMU


On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't done a lot of FT8 operating but I am curious about something. The
higher you go in bands, the more likely that there is jitter and drift in
the signal. At 24 GHz I have some drift in my signal, perhaps a few hundred
Hz up and down depending on conditions. At 47 GHz I not only have drift but
jitter to deal with. Signal sounds "wobbly" over a 20-30 Hz range. How do
those affect FT8?

73, Zack W9SZ

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:17 PM John Young via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:

>
> I dont do  just FM, I work W4IY multi op PH and Digital every June......
>
> I dont like being on FT8 but when the sporadic e is gone, running is
> fruitless and we have worked everything on the band scope across the bands
> FT8 is the place to go to slowly add QSO's and multi's while waiting for
> the next opening or fresh local meat to show up.  As many have said, and I
> agree, FT8 is a useful tool.  Being able to QSY on FT8 (we didn't do that,
> but saw a few who did) would make it more useful.
>
> What frustrated and shocked me was how many were not leaving 6m FT8 when
> the cloud appeared at various times and locations making contacts at almost
> any point on the continent possible at one time or another on PH & CW.  I
> was horrified in the last 2 hrs when normally 6m is loaded with PH and CW,
> but despite some really good openings it seemed like everyone stuck to or
> migrated to running on FT8 chasing a few more grids.  It ended up being a
> self fulfilling prophecy, everyone jammed in there so the bands died and it
> was foolish to be anywhere else, Baa, Baa, Moo Moo, follow the herd.
>
> I see the problem as one of luring people off of FT8 and onto PH & CW.
>
> I suggest holding FT8 to one point on all bands below 902.  Let the points
> grow from 902 up to get more activity, even if it is FT8 up there.  Double
> the QSO points for PH and CW on all bands to make it worth the "risk" of
> not following the herd to 6m FT8 and parking there all contest long.  It
> will be harder to win without the upper bands, which would motivate more to
> add them and use them.
>
> 73
> John
> KM4KMU
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 JamesDuffey <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>