Date   

Re: NMVHF success in June 2019 VHF contest

Keith Morehouse
 

Jim, congratulations on your National win !
Not an easy thing to do, in any transmitter class !

-W9RM

Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:40 PM James Duffey <JamesDuffey@...> wrote:
The QST summary of the June VHF contest is out, as are the line scores.  The full article has not yet been posted.


NMVHF Society and its members have done well. One of my goals when helping to form the society was to have an organization to which I and others could contribute Contest scores.  A secondary goal was to be competitive with other clubs in the area, and to a lesser degree, with other clubs in the nation. I think we met that goal.

We finished eighth nationally in the medium club category. We are in elite company in the top ten in this category.

Notable finishes by NMVHF society members include

KK6MC/r Limited Rover high score nationally

W9RM - SOHP high score Rocky Mountain Division

AI5I - SOLP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

WA6BJH - SOP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

New Mexico High Scores by NMVHF Society

K5AM - SOHP

AI5I - SOLP

WA6BJH - SOP

KC7QY - SO3B

If I missed anyone’s accomplishments let me know. Congrats to all! - Duffey KK6MC 

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM


Re: NMVHF success in June 2019 VHF contest

KC7QY
 

Great  job Duffey! Wish I could have caught you in a couple more grids, would have helped both of us.

Jim KC7QY


On Friday, November 15, 2019, 12:40:43 PM MST, James Duffey <jamesduffey@...> wrote:


The QST summary of the June VHF contest is out, as are the line scores.  The full article has not yet been posted.


NMVHF Society and its members have done well. One of my goals when helping to form the society was to have an organization to which I and others could contribute Contest scores.  A secondary goal was to be competitive with other clubs in the area, and to a lesser degree, with other clubs in the nation. I think we met that goal.

We finished eighth nationally in the medium club category. We are in elite company in the top ten in this category.

Notable finishes by NMVHF society members include

KK6MC/r Limited Rover high score nationally

W9RM - SOHP high score Rocky Mountain Division

AI5I - SOLP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

WA6BJH - SOP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

New Mexico High Scores by NMVHF Society

K5AM - SOHP

AI5I - SOLP

WA6BJH - SOP

KC7QY - SO3B

If I missed anyone’s accomplishments let me know. Congrats to all! - Duffey KK6MC 

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM


NMVHF success in June 2019 VHF contest

James Duffey
 

The QST summary of the June VHF contest is out, as are the line scores.  The full article has not yet been posted.


NMVHF Society and its members have done well. One of my goals when helping to form the society was to have an organization to which I and others could contribute Contest scores.  A secondary goal was to be competitive with other clubs in the area, and to a lesser degree, with other clubs in the nation. I think we met that goal.

We finished eighth nationally in the medium club category. We are in elite company in the top ten in this category.

Notable finishes by NMVHF society members include

KK6MC/r Limited Rover high score nationally

W9RM - SOHP high score Rocky Mountain Division

AI5I - SOLP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

WA6BJH - SOP high score Rocky Mountain Division 

New Mexico High Scores by NMVHF Society

K5AM - SOHP

AI5I - SOLP

WA6BJH - SOP

KC7QY - SO3B

If I missed anyone’s accomplishments let me know. Congrats to all! - Duffey KK6MC 

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM


Re: Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

Bill
 

Keith,

Yes!  Could be a great tool for rovers, portable stations or anyone with limited space or a penchant for V/UHF QRP.  One could use an Elecraft KX3, K3(s) or K2 (no FM or 50 MHz) as an IF to make a compact station.  Steve's been working on this for a little over a year and had a prototype on display at Central States 2019.  Looks like DEM is moving quickly to launching this product.

Bill W7QQ


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:19 AM Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:
Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.


Re: Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

James Duffey
 

I think the one Watt would be useful under many circumstances. During the January  contest in AZ, I work a lot of SOTA guys who use 222, 902, and/or 1296 handie talkies at FM power levels of a Watt or so, out to distances of 75 to 100 miles or so.  SSB/CW should be a big improvement SNR wise to those guys as well as increasing scores. Also, the one Watt should be good for communications between the Moriarty convergence and Albuquerque or Santa Fe as an example, and also between your QTH And Grand Mesa. If the three band stations I work in Albuquerque and Santa Fe had one Watt capability on those bands my score would increase significantly.

Granted 5 or 10Watts on those bands would be better, but just having the capability is a major step forward and useful in and of itself. 

I will refrain from commenting on how useful this would be for rovers who grid circle.  -Duffey 
James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM

On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:32, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:


Probably not at an output power that would be usable, stand-alone.  Most broadband high power gain blocks are limited to maybe a few watts.  The higher power modules DEMI and Q5 Signal use in the current crop of transverters are relatively narrow band.  Even the power amps in the "all-band" transceivers available today won't work very well above about 500 MHz.  100W class SSPA's are pretty cheap and could be cheaper if you add your own T/R switching, which, of course, increases the complexity.

I'm pretty sure this device would blow away any current "all band" radio in RX performance and they are targeting a $500 price point !  $500 for good performance on FIVE bands above 50 MHz, plus automatic band-switching (with the proper IF radio), referenced locked stability and built-in sequencer to run those outboard PA's.  All in one relatively little box.

I know what the inside of MY rover-mobile looks like with all those bands running through individual boxes !   This would go a long way to cleaning it up.

-W9RM

Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:00 AM Bruce Draper <bruceaa5b@...> wrote:
Yep, looks good. But this plug-and-play appliance operator would still like a single box that covers those bands and has good output power. Probably not gonna happen. 

Bruce AA5B/3 in FM28


On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:

Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.


Re: Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

James Duffey
 

This is a very nice product. Steve has given hints of this in talks over the last couple of years. It is nice to see it come to fruition. 

But, I think anyone who is expecting this to be available in the first quarter of 2020 has never ordered anything from DEMI. His delivery schedules are nearly always optimistic. 

It appears that it will be a real bargain at $100 per band. 

With that out of the way, it is a product that has a lot of potential to a lot of different applications, not only rovers. If it is available for $500, that will be a cheap way for those guys who have  one of those DC to daylight rigs covering 6M, 2M, and 432 to add 222, 902, and 1296. The FT817/818 SOTA crowd should like this, especially for Single Operator QRP portable operations. Those guys often have 222/902/1296 handle talkies to cover additional bands and this box o’verters should give them those bands at the same or lower cost, with 15 to 20 dB improvement in SNR. 

More power, 5W to 10W would be nice, as would an option for a 2M IF. But this should get more guys on the higher bands, and perhaps stem the exodus to 6M in VHF contests driven by the use of  FT8/FT4 by more and more ops. 

Already thinking of the possibilities of pairing this with my KX3. -  Duffey 

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM

On Nov 15, 2019, at 08:54, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:


Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.


Re: Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

Keith Morehouse
 

Probably not at an output power that would be usable, stand-alone.  Most broadband high power gain blocks are limited to maybe a few watts.  The higher power modules DEMI and Q5 Signal use in the current crop of transverters are relatively narrow band.  Even the power amps in the "all-band" transceivers available today won't work very well above about 500 MHz.  100W class SSPA's are pretty cheap and could be cheaper if you add your own T/R switching, which, of course, increases the complexity.

I'm pretty sure this device would blow away any current "all band" radio in RX performance and they are targeting a $500 price point !  $500 for good performance on FIVE bands above 50 MHz, plus automatic band-switching (with the proper IF radio), referenced locked stability and built-in sequencer to run those outboard PA's.  All in one relatively little box.

I know what the inside of MY rover-mobile looks like with all those bands running through individual boxes !   This would go a long way to cleaning it up.

-W9RM

Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:00 AM Bruce Draper <bruceaa5b@...> wrote:
Yep, looks good. But this plug-and-play appliance operator would still like a single box that covers those bands and has good output power. Probably not gonna happen. 

Bruce AA5B/3 in FM28


On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:

Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.


Re: Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

Bruce Draper
 

Yep, looks good. But this plug-and-play appliance operator would still like a single box that covers those bands and has good output power. Probably not gonna happen. 

Bruce AA5B/3 in FM28


On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:

Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.
_._,_._,_


Multi band Transverter (2m-23cm)

Keith Morehouse
 

Interesting new product from Downeast Microwave.  With the addition of a few medium power amplifier bricks and a IF radio capable of 6M, this would make a really nice, compact Rover setup.


FSJ4PX-50B 1/2 Andrew Hard line

Justin Clark (KJ7JC)
 

I came across a contact selling unused Heliax Super Flex. She said she has around 2000 rolls of various lengths. I got 3 50' rolls with N connector on one end for $120 + shipping. Told her I would share her number. If your interested give her a text. She doesn't know a lot about the cable other than its unused. 6156263439


Re: WANTED 1/2 Hardline.

Justin Clark (KJ7JC)
 

Thank you Mike! I like the call btw!


On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 5:11 PM Michael Daly <arrowengineering1@...> wrote:

Justin,

I have two feelers out.

Mike, n5sj

 

Michael Daly

1408 Linda Drive

Gallup, NM 87301-5616

Cell: 505-870-3430

e-mail: arrowengineering1@...

 

 

 

From: main@nmvhf.groups.io [mailto:main@nmvhf.groups.io] On Behalf Of Justin Clark (KJ7JC)
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 6:04 AM
To: main@nmvhf.groups.io
Subject: [nmvhf] WANTED 1/2 Hardline.

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Looking to buy 1/2" hardline. Let me know if you have any or a good lead on some. ~100' ldf4-50 fsj4-50


Re: WANTED 1/2 Hardline.

Michael Daly
 

Justin,

I have two feelers out.

Mike, n5sj

 

Michael Daly

1408 Linda Drive

Gallup, NM 87301-5616

Cell: 505-870-3430

e-mail: arrowengineering1@...

 

 

 

From: main@nmvhf.groups.io [mailto:main@nmvhf.groups.io] On Behalf Of Justin Clark (KJ7JC)
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 6:04 AM
To: main@nmvhf.groups.io
Subject: [nmvhf] WANTED 1/2 Hardline.

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Looking to buy 1/2" hardline. Let me know if you have any or a good lead on some. ~100' ldf4-50 fsj4-50


WANTED 1/2 Hardline.

Justin Clark (KJ7JC)
 
Edited

Looking to buy 1/2" hardline. Let me know if you have any or a good lead on some. ~100' ldf4-50 fsj4-50


Re: [VHFcontesting] Pondering

Michael Daly
 

Keith,

I suggest you write an article about this and submit to the National Contest Journal.  It’s a great and timely topic.

 

Scott Wright, K0MD, is editor.  I copied him on this.

Mike, n5sj

 

 

From: nmvhf@groups.io [mailto:nmvhf@groups.io] On Behalf Of Keith Morehouse
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 6:40 PM
To: vhfcontesting@...
Cc: GMCC <gmc@...>; nmvhf@groups.io
Subject: Re: [nmvhf] [VHFcontesting] Pondering

 

This is all good and very true.  BUT, the problem is only a small percentage of ops on 6M during a June or July contest really CARE if they are winning or losing.

 

The vast majority of ops the "big guys" work during a killer run, be it on 6 during the ARRL June VHF contest or on 40 during Sweepstakes phone, are only there casually.  You or I can stand on our street corner box and preach the gospel of using SSB (OK, or CW...) during an opening, threatening hell-fire, damnation and, gasp!, a contest lost and the majority of those we work will think, "Why should I care ?  I'm not a competitor anyway.  I'm just in it for a contact, a new grid, for something to do untill the game comes on TV...".

 

FT8 (I separate that mode out as the real killer of contest rate - MSK144 & JT65 ENHANCE your score - FT8 does the opposite) is a fine mode, being used improperly by the very operators serious contesters need to put up 'the good numbers'.  You will probably not stop this by traditional means - such as education through mentoring or Contest University.  Heck, maybe it SHOULDN'T be stopped and just accepted as a natural change in the VHF contesting scene, like grid squares replaced ARRL sections as mults.

 

If that is the case, MANY traditional ops, unfortunately for the casual ops, those with some of the bigger signals, will leave (and are leaving...) the band for other endeavors more satisfying then mouse clicking all day.  If this was happening to HF contesting you would see rapid movement for change.

 

I believe the HF contesting movers and shakers don't realize or care that VHF has a problem that is lowering scores and diminishing contesting skills.  VHF contests, by definition, allow all modes to be used.  HF contests have CW weekends and Phone weekends.   

 

The question on 6M is not whether you love or hate FT8, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the state of the VHF contesting art for the worse.  If this is acceptable to the majority, so be it.  If it's not acceptable, what changes need to be made ?

 

-W9RM

Keith Morehouse
via MotoG

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:30 PM Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@...> wrote:


The really great ops that sometimes visit here can do more than 200 contacts per hour. 
What that means is that if you are fooling around with FT8, making 30
contacts an hour(a fair estimate) while a big Es opening occurs, you
will lose the contest.  On the other hand if you spend loads of time
calling CQ on SSB, hoping for an opening that never occurs, you will
lose the contest.

The contest knowledge and skill is in knowing when to be running SSB,
when to be running MSK144, when to use JT65, and when to use FT8.  I can
almost guarantee that if you blindly park on one of the FT8 "watering
holes" for the entire contest, you will not do as well as someone that
uses a more "adventurous" approach.




Re: [VHFcontesting] Pondering

Arne N7KA
 

Contesting is not a concern for quite a few VHF/UHF folks who just want casual QSOs.  For example NMVHFS now  has 63 members, BUT in almost any contest I hear maybe 10-15% of quantity, MAX.  That has affected my contest activity, and also consider lack of 6M openings and digi modes robbing folks  from CW/SSB.  Rovers to me seem to have both good and bad affects.  I hear a rover working someone, the rover asks other bands?, then QSY.  Am I to sit there and wait for the rover to come back so I  can do the same thing, work them on 1 band then QSY to another, oh that next station now has to wait for the rover to return and repeat the process again.  Who can blame the rover in trying to maximize their score, though negatively affecting fixed  station scores.  Yes it nice to get rover mults but to what overall negative affect?  I have shut off the radio to enjoy some  other interesting event, like grass growing on my sandy 1 acre.  I  firmly believe separate CW/SSB from DIGI modes, have 2 contests.  Thankfully  VHF/UHF is not wall-to-wall contesting every weekend.

 

That's my personal opinion.  Take it or leave it.


Arne N7KA

On September 25, 2019 at 7:38 PM Bill <bill4070@...> wrote:

I've been lurking on this issue for some time now. I must say that the declining  VHF contest environment since the advent of FT8 has become masterfully defined by many.  I agree with most of the comments thus far: We cannot put that beautiful genie back in the bottle. Contesting life as we knew it has changed forever. We're doing a poor job of protecting our spectrum space by concentrating activity on a few channelized hot spots..... and so on.

I'd like to see some discussion about proposed changes.  I've heard some good ones: Allow points to be accrued by contacts made on different modes on each band. Have separate contests for digital and SSB/CW as examples.  So lets hear some chatter about solution proposals.

As long as the "submitted logs" metric is thought to be the accepted goodness factor, we'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that anything needs fixing. Average VHF QSOs per log is decreasing. So is activity on the higher UHF bands; and those are the metrics we should use in discussions about changes.

Bill W7QQ
DM75ao

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:40 PM Keith Morehouse < w9rm@...> wrote:
This is all good and very true.  BUT, the problem is only a small percentage of ops on 6M during a June or July contest really CARE if they are winning or losing.

The vast majority of ops the "big guys" work during a killer run, be it on 6 during the ARRL June VHF contest or on 40 during Sweepstakes phone, are only there casually.  You or I can stand on our street corner box and preach the gospel of using SSB (OK, or CW...) during an opening, threatening hell-fire, damnation and, gasp!, a contest lost and the majority of those we work will think, "Why should I care ?  I'm not a competitor anyway.  I'm just in it for a contact, a new grid, for something to do untill the game comes on TV...".

FT8 (I separate that mode out as the real killer of contest rate - MSK144 & JT65 ENHANCE your score - FT8 does the opposite) is a fine mode, being used improperly by the very operators serious contesters need to put up 'the good numbers'.  You will probably not stop this by traditional means - such as education through mentoring or Contest University.  Heck, maybe it SHOULDN'T be stopped and just accepted as a natural change in the VHF contesting scene, like grid squares replaced ARRL sections as mults.

If that is the case, MANY traditional ops, unfortunately for the casual ops, those with some of the bigger signals, will leave (and are leaving...) the band for other endeavors more satisfying then mouse clicking all day.  If this was happening to HF contesting you would see rapid movement for change.

I believe the HF contesting movers and shakers don't realize or care that VHF has a problem that is lowering scores and diminishing contesting skills.  VHF contests, by definition, allow all modes to be used.  HF contests have CW weekends and Phone weekends.   

The question on 6M is not whether you love or hate FT8, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the state of the VHF contesting art for the worse.  If this is acceptable to the majority, so be it.  If it's not acceptable, what changes need to be made ?

-W9RM

Keith Morehouse
via MotoG

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:30 PM Marshall-K5QE < k5qe@...> wrote:

The really great ops that sometimes visit here can do more than 200 contacts per hour. 
What that means is that if you are fooling around with FT8, making 30
contacts an hour(a fair estimate) while a big Es opening occurs, you
will lose the contest.  On the other hand if you spend loads of time
calling CQ on SSB, hoping for an opening that never occurs, you will
lose the contest.

The contest knowledge and skill is in knowing when to be running SSB,
when to be running MSK144, when to use JT65, and when to use FT8.  I can
almost guarantee that if you blindly park on one of the FT8 "watering
holes" for the entire contest, you will not do as well as someone that
uses a more "adventurous" approach.




 

 


Re: [VHFcontesting] Pondering

Bill
 

I've been lurking on this issue for some time now. I must say that the declining  VHF contest environment since the advent of FT8 has become masterfully defined by many.  I agree with most of the comments thus far: We cannot put that beautiful genie back in the bottle. Contesting life as we knew it has changed forever. We're doing a poor job of protecting our spectrum space by concentrating activity on a few channelized hot spots..... and so on.

I'd like to see some discussion about proposed changes.  I've heard some good ones: Allow points to be accrued by contacts made on different modes on each band. Have separate contests for digital and SSB/CW as examples.  So lets hear some chatter about solution proposals.

As long as the "submitted logs" metric is thought to be the accepted goodness factor, we'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that anything needs fixing. Average VHF QSOs per log is decreasing. So is activity on the higher UHF bands; and those are the metrics we should use in discussions about changes.

Bill W7QQ
DM75ao


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:40 PM Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:
This is all good and very true.  BUT, the problem is only a small percentage of ops on 6M during a June or July contest really CARE if they are winning or losing.

The vast majority of ops the "big guys" work during a killer run, be it on 6 during the ARRL June VHF contest or on 40 during Sweepstakes phone, are only there casually.  You or I can stand on our street corner box and preach the gospel of using SSB (OK, or CW...) during an opening, threatening hell-fire, damnation and, gasp!, a contest lost and the majority of those we work will think, "Why should I care ?  I'm not a competitor anyway.  I'm just in it for a contact, a new grid, for something to do untill the game comes on TV...".

FT8 (I separate that mode out as the real killer of contest rate - MSK144 & JT65 ENHANCE your score - FT8 does the opposite) is a fine mode, being used improperly by the very operators serious contesters need to put up 'the good numbers'.  You will probably not stop this by traditional means - such as education through mentoring or Contest University.  Heck, maybe it SHOULDN'T be stopped and just accepted as a natural change in the VHF contesting scene, like grid squares replaced ARRL sections as mults.

If that is the case, MANY traditional ops, unfortunately for the casual ops, those with some of the bigger signals, will leave (and are leaving...) the band for other endeavors more satisfying then mouse clicking all day.  If this was happening to HF contesting you would see rapid movement for change.

I believe the HF contesting movers and shakers don't realize or care that VHF has a problem that is lowering scores and diminishing contesting skills.  VHF contests, by definition, allow all modes to be used.  HF contests have CW weekends and Phone weekends.   

The question on 6M is not whether you love or hate FT8, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the state of the VHF contesting art for the worse.  If this is acceptable to the majority, so be it.  If it's not acceptable, what changes need to be made ?

-W9RM

Keith Morehouse
via MotoG

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:30 PM Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@...> wrote:

The really great ops that sometimes visit here can do more than 200 contacts per hour. 
What that means is that if you are fooling around with FT8, making 30
contacts an hour(a fair estimate) while a big Es opening occurs, you
will lose the contest.  On the other hand if you spend loads of time
calling CQ on SSB, hoping for an opening that never occurs, you will
lose the contest.

The contest knowledge and skill is in knowing when to be running SSB,
when to be running MSK144, when to use JT65, and when to use FT8.  I can
almost guarantee that if you blindly park on one of the FT8 "watering
holes" for the entire contest, you will not do as well as someone that
uses a more "adventurous" approach.





Re: [VHFcontesting] Pondering

Keith Morehouse
 

This is all good and very true.  BUT, the problem is only a small percentage of ops on 6M during a June or July contest really CARE if they are winning or losing.

The vast majority of ops the "big guys" work during a killer run, be it on 6 during the ARRL June VHF contest or on 40 during Sweepstakes phone, are only there casually.  You or I can stand on our street corner box and preach the gospel of using SSB (OK, or CW...) during an opening, threatening hell-fire, damnation and, gasp!, a contest lost and the majority of those we work will think, "Why should I care ?  I'm not a competitor anyway.  I'm just in it for a contact, a new grid, for something to do untill the game comes on TV...".

FT8 (I separate that mode out as the real killer of contest rate - MSK144 & JT65 ENHANCE your score - FT8 does the opposite) is a fine mode, being used improperly by the very operators serious contesters need to put up 'the good numbers'.  You will probably not stop this by traditional means - such as education through mentoring or Contest University.  Heck, maybe it SHOULDN'T be stopped and just accepted as a natural change in the VHF contesting scene, like grid squares replaced ARRL sections as mults.

If that is the case, MANY traditional ops, unfortunately for the casual ops, those with some of the bigger signals, will leave (and are leaving...) the band for other endeavors more satisfying then mouse clicking all day.  If this was happening to HF contesting you would see rapid movement for change.

I believe the HF contesting movers and shakers don't realize or care that VHF has a problem that is lowering scores and diminishing contesting skills.  VHF contests, by definition, allow all modes to be used.  HF contests have CW weekends and Phone weekends.   

The question on 6M is not whether you love or hate FT8, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the state of the VHF contesting art for the worse.  If this is acceptable to the majority, so be it.  If it's not acceptable, what changes need to be made ?

-W9RM

Keith Morehouse
via MotoG


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:30 PM Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@...> wrote:

The really great ops that sometimes visit here can do more than 200 contacts per hour. 
What that means is that if you are fooling around with FT8, making 30
contacts an hour(a fair estimate) while a big Es opening occurs, you
will lose the contest.  On the other hand if you spend loads of time
calling CQ on SSB, hoping for an opening that never occurs, you will
lose the contest.

The contest knowledge and skill is in knowing when to be running SSB,
when to be running MSK144, when to use JT65, and when to use FT8.  I can
almost guarantee that if you blindly park on one of the FT8 "watering
holes" for the entire contest, you will not do as well as someone that
uses a more "adventurous" approach.





Re: Frequency Calibration

KD
 

Thanks for the info John.  I don't think my frequency is drifting that much, if at all.  I question the reports I received due to the wide range, both positive and negative.  The rig has been on for about 5 hours now and on 20 MHz WWV I'm off about 0.37 Hz on average.  At 10 Mhz I'm off on average 0.22 Hz.  If I'm calculating correctly, that slope would infer that I would be off about 18 Hz at 144 MHz.  For MS work that should be more than adequate.

73 de N5KS - KD
DM95be40ei


Re: Frequency Calibration

John Klem
 

KD - The WSJT-X FreqCal process should reliably get you very close unless your rig is drifting badly.  You might try FreqCal at cold start, after 1 hour on receive, and after some high-duty-cycle transmitting to get your rig hot, and see how much they differ.

You can use some abbreviated version of the FreqCal process, maybe even just looking at WWV at the highest frequency you can hear well, as a sanity check.  I have a relatively new TS-590SG with TXCO and can clearly see the temperature drift from cold start this way, but it's not bad enough to produce the biggest errors you describe.   I believe you can safely assume that the error scales with frequency, so if WWV on 15 MHz appears off by 5 Hz, your frequency error on 2 m will be around 50 Hz.

Just let me know if you want further details.

John AA5PR


Re: [VHFcontesting] Digital and Q arrangement contesting

David Hollander
 

Thanks for sharing that Keith. That is how I feel too.

Nice meeting you the other night.

73,

Dave N7RK
--
Dave Hollander N7RK
Arizona Tube Supply
http://arizonatubesupply.com

Ham Radio Page
http://n7rk.com

401 - 420 of 1166