On Mar 1, 2021, at 08:53, Jay Baack <whereisjay@...> wrote:



Sorry to hear the new James, but thank you for sharing it.  Are you all thinking that CSVHF 2022 will be held in the same location?

- Jay N1AV

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:35 AM James Duffey <JamesDuffey@...> wrote:

The CSVHF board of Directors met last night and voted, not unanimously, not to hold the CSVHF conference this year. It is uncertain at this time if a virtual event will be held in its stead. I don’t know how many of you were planning on going as it was to be held fairly far away, but if you were planning on going, you can adapt your plans accordingly. - Duffey

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM

On Feb 27, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Brian Mileshosky <n5zgt@...> wrote:

Greetings —

Rocky Mountain Ham Radio (RMHAM) launched a “pico-balloon” from Albuquerque this morning in conjunction with today’s New Mexico TechFest event.

A pico-balloon is a 3 foot mylar party balloon, filled partially with ultra-pure helium, and carrying a 13 gram solar-powered APRS transmitter.  The balloon is intended to travel for long distances (not to achieve heights) and are not intended to be recovered.  These balloons have literally circumnavigated the globe — even multiple times — before finally going down.

Since being launched from Albuquerque just before 8:30AM MST this morning, it is currently cruising between Springer and Clayton, New Mexico at an altitude of 26,000 feet at nearly 120 MPH.  It beacons on APRS every 2 minutes, and will continue to beacon for as long as the sun is hitting its solar panels (or until the balloon descends naturally or due to weather).  It is expected to fly at least to Maine and will likely continue flying further eastward as winds allow.

If you’d like to track the progress of the RMHAM pico-balloon yourself, check out either of these websites:

https://tracker.habhub.org (Look for N5ZGT-1 in the list on the left side of the page)

https://aprs.fi/#!call=a%2FN5ZGT-1&timerange=3600&tail=3600

RMHAM plans to conduct at least two more launches from the Albuquerque this spring/summer.  COVID permitting, we will invite interested amateur radio operators to participate in the launch in-person.  One of these launches will carry a 15 gram 20-meter HF WSPR payload which will allow tracking while the balloon is over oceans (where VHF APRS digis are not).

For more information about Rocky Mountain Ham Radio and the TechFest event that is currently in progress, please visit https://www.rmham.org

73,

Brian N5ZGT

On Jan 18, 2021, at 10:35, James Duffey <jamesduffey@...> wrote:

Keith - While I understand and respect your position, I am concerned about the proliferation of categories in the VHF/UHF Contests without some well thought out rationale. The introduction of the Limited Multioperator category has significantly reduced participation in the Multioperator category and, with it, severely reduced microwave activity. The same thing has happened with the introduction of the Limited Rover category. The Single Operator Three Band category has had the same effect on 222MHz activity. While appealing to the guys who have DC to Daylight rigs, it has reduced the incentive to get on 222MHz for many. So, at first blush, your three band high power proposal kind of alarms me. Let me suggest an alternative. 

If one thinks some categories are important, and they probably are, I think it makes sense to use a “Chinese Restaurant Menu” scheme. I saw this first suggested by K5AM in the VHF Contesting forum many years ago. This is a modification of his proposal:

Power	Band	Station	Operators
(Pick one)	(Pick one or two)	(Pick one)	(Pick one)
High	Low (6M to 432)	Fixed	Single (one)
Low	High (902 to light)	Portable	Multiple( to or more)
QRP		Rover

 

I like this approach. It allows one more opportunity to customize categories than trying to force fit into the current narrowly defined categories. 

I hope the table comes across OK. If not, try switching to a monospaced font. If that doesn’t work, I can try something else. 

One essentially chooses the category to enter by selecting from each column. So you might like to enter High-Low-Fixed-Single instead of your wish for high power 3 band. W7QQ might enter High-Both-Fixed-Single; I might enter Low-Both-Rover-Single. It gives the SOTA guys opportunities to do multioperator QRP efforts.

In my experience with Rover and UHF Contest issues, asking the CAC to do something is can be an exercise in frustration.  From my experience, after you contact your CAC representative, your CAC representative will politely respond with they can only act on issues the ARRL BOD sends them. Which is true. If you talk to your Director, the Director will nicely say these things are handled through the Program Services Committee (PSC). If you talk to a PSC Committee member they will either reply that they are not your Director and you should tell your director what you want, or, if they are your director, they will say they can only act if there is a lot of demand, which there isn’t,  being as VHF/UHF contesting is a small niche of the hams they represent. Many (most?) of the ARRL hierarchy are not familiar with VHF/UHF contesting, and after listening to you explain what you want done and why it is useful, and in some cases the appeal of VHF/UHF contesting, will refer you to someone who is familiar with VHF/UHF concerns. That person likely has no representative connection with you and likely has no power to enact what you want done, but will very nicely take the time to listen to you. In the end, something may get done, but the CAC won’t initiate it. I may have exaggerated my interactions a bit, and at that time my interaction was complicated further by a VHF/UHF Contest Advisory Committee, but it is a problem. 

And, I agree with K5AM, who, along with suggesting the Chinese Restaurant Menu scheme for categories, made the insightful comment that “Limited” is a poor choice of a name for any contesting category. 

 

Sorry for the rant on your nickel Keith. I have an ulterior motive, it is always nice to work you in the contests, on lots of bands. - Duffey

James Duffey KK6MC

Cedar Crest NM

On Jan 18, 2021, at 09:03, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:



I think it's humorous that a lot of folks still think there is a HIGH POWER category as a subset of the 3 BAND class.

But, it brings up a question.  I, personally, would be all over a category like 3 BAND HIGH POWER.  3 band is a natural for where I live and, already having amplifiers to compete in the traditional high-power class (the big-boy class....wink wink nudge nudge), I'm not going to put them aside and take the BIG hit out here in the wilderness of trying to work "locals" 200 miles away with 100W on 432 or, our bread and butter 6M scatter with low power.

What do others think about petitioning the CAC to add a HIGH POWER subcategory to 3 BAND ?  It certainly wouldn't diminish the traditional (it's been around long enough that I can call it that) 3 band class - it gives people the choice, just like the all-band categories.  But, it WOULD open up, in my opinion, pretty intense competition for a BUNCH of guys who know they CAN NOT win the regular high power class which is pretty much dominated by one or two stations, time after time after time.  I'm not denigrating the skill and engineering talent required to pull off a top all band high power station - I salute that.  But, unless you live in a very select area of the country, with plenty of stations to work above 1296 MHz, all the gear and skill in the world will do you no good.

I would welcome a 3 BAND HIGH POWER category and I believe it just might invigorate my rapidly diminishing desire to VHF contest, in general .  Anybody else have an opinion ?

-W9RM

DM58 CO

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

On Jan 18, 2021, at 09:03, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@...> wrote:



I think it's humorous that a lot of folks still think there is a HIGH POWER category as a subset of the 3 BAND class.

But, it brings up a question.  I, personally, would be all over a category like 3 BAND HIGH POWER.  3 band is a natural for where I live and, already having amplifiers to compete in the traditional high-power class (the big-boy class....wink wink nudge nudge), I'm not going to put them aside and take the BIG hit out here in the wilderness of trying to work "locals" 200 miles away with 100W on 432 or, our bread and butter 6M scatter with low power.

What do others think about petitioning the CAC to add a HIGH POWER subcategory to 3 BAND ?  It certainly wouldn't diminish the traditional (it's been around long enough that I can call it that) 3 band class - it gives people the choice, just like the all-band categories.  But, it WOULD open up, in my opinion, pretty intense competition for a BUNCH of guys who know they CAN NOT win the regular high power class which is pretty much dominated by one or two stations, time after time after time.  I'm not denigrating the skill and engineering talent required to pull off a top all band high power station - I salute that.  But, unless you live in a very select area of the country, with plenty of stations to work above 1296 MHz, all the gear and skill in the world will do you no good.

I would welcome a 3 BAND HIGH POWER category and I believe it just might invigorate my rapidly diminishing desire to VHF contest, in general .  Anybody else have an opinion ?

-W9RM

DM58 CO

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