Paul,
This is clearly a regional discussion. Here in EM84 you could shoot the
proverbial canon through most of the 2 meter weak signal band and not take
out anyone. Not that that is a good thing but it is what it is.
Just curious - how wide do you set your panadapter? I know on 6 we
routinely monitor from the beacon band through 50.360 MHz or there abouts.
This allows us to watch for new beacons, watch for CW/SSB signals and
monitor the digital hot spots. If it is there we will see it. Not being
the 2m band captain I am not sure of the exact 2m panadapter bandwidth
settings but I know they are similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:18 PM N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com> wrote:
> There has been a large interest in the subject of CQ frequencies for
> the geographically challenged, etc. I'm still sorting through emails
> and I owe several people replies.
>
> Short version of a long story: 144.237 WILL NOT WORK for me in major
> VHF contests. So my search goes on. Some further thoughts on that...
>
> Back in the day we operated CW around 144.100 and SSB from there up
> to 144.250. Admittedly there were more active VHF contest stations
> back then but we had a lot more room to spread out. Now, with
> digital modes occupying more and more space we are basically crammed
> into about 70 kHz for SSB/CW contesting... from 144.180 to 144.250.
> From my limited perspective it seems like crowding and QRM is far
> worse now than it used to be. Maybe it's partly because I hear more
> of the activity now with better antennas?
>
> A number of people have indicated they don't listen/watch above
> 144.250 which makes using a run frequency up there less attractive.
> But in a practical sense, those of us who are outside the NE
> corridor looking in may need to move up and hope word of our run
> frequencies gets around enough. Maybe we need to start a grass roots
> campaign to get people routinely checking all the way up to 144.275
> in contests! That would help!
>
> I've been told 144.250 is a bad choice and I am well aware 144.260
> is the microwave liason frequency. My current thinking is toward
> trying 144.255 or 144.265 and see how that works out. Comments are
> welcome.
>
> Two other suggestions have been made (and I owe people personal
> replies on these). Bot are interesting and in my opinion worthy of
> serious consideration.
>
> One is for several Maine stations to operate together where one,
> probably the southernmost, would CQ and then ask stations to listen
> for his friends who are on frequency. This sounds great for those of
> us like myself who are "up north" but may hurt the QSO rate of our
> benefactor down south. It could get complicated if only some of the
> stations involved have other bands to run.
>
> Another is to have several Maine stations CQing on different
> frequencies but all aligned to the same time slots, say two 10
> minute windows each hour. The hope here would be that knowing
> several of us were on at specific times would encourage people to
> look this way.
>
> I am often asked if any other stations are active up here or in
> grids further north. For the most part the answer has been no,
> although there are two low power stations who have been around from
> time to time in FN55 the last couple of years. Over the years many
> have tried and lost interest precisely because it is so difficult to
> make QSOs and have fun up here. I run legal limit to a long yagi at
> 110 feet on 2 meters and I am struggling. Imagine what it is like
> for the guy with 100 watts or less and a small yagi.
>
> It's not that contacts can't be made with small stations. Three
> years ago when I started with the new station build I was active for
> a summer with 25 watts to the most horrible little 6 element yagi
> you ever would hope to see (or hope not to see!). I worked as far as
> FN31 (350 miles) in contests that summer. But that was mainly
> through arrangements made via internet chat sites.
>
> We may have recently lost one of those two I mentioned. He was
> active with a transverter I gave him but was struggling for QSOs.
> Something killed the transverter (maybe lightning). I've made an
> attempt to repair it but have not succeeded. I'm not sure if he will
> invest in a transverter to replace it given the extremely low return
> on investment. If we could figure out a way for us to be heard
> calling CQ and/or get more people to look this way, it would help to
> encourage activity in the area. I will continue to explore options.
> I tend to think the same would apply to other outlying areas.
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG FN55MF
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|