CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:10:02 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 7/23/2019 5:45 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a lot of those who are using the FT8 mode are not really the
ones who were using CW and SSB before.

Bright people will find the best way to do things, and if the objective is to work weak signals, and to work those in rare locations who don't have CW skills, modes like FT8 can be a better way.

Folks east of Chicago are really spoiled -- a look at PSKReporter or DXmaps almost any day during E-skip season on 6M shows how good you have it. You have multiple strong single-hop openings between areas with high population density, so SSB works fine. But it doesn't when I want to work those same high population density areas -- I need a LOT more noise rejection than I can get from SSB. Until FT8 came along, I worked almost all CW in VHF contests. My last CW QSO on 6M was three seasons ago, a VE6 who took two years to send me the card for his rare grid.

One thing that WOULD help restore CW on 6M, especially for me and others with a P3 spectrum display (which is limited to 200 kHz max width), would be to move the FT8 frequency to around 50.27 MHz, because that would allow me to monitor the CW frequencies while working FT8. This is something that the League Can, and SHOULD do. With FT8 on 50.313, I can monitor for SSB, which I don't care about, but not CW.

73, Jim K9YC


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>