>As you may have read or heard, CQ magazine is indeed launching a
>new contest magazine, appropriately entitled "CQ Contest." The
>premier issue is scheduled for January, 1996 (mail date December)
How much for a subscription?
--
Sean Kutzko Amateur Radio: KF9PL
Urbana, IL DXCC:304 worked/300 cfmd
"All Good Things In All Good Time."
>From john.devoldere@eunet.be (John Devoldere) Wed Oct 4 00:36:09 1995
From: john.devoldere@eunet.be (John Devoldere) (John Devoldere)
Subject: TWO WEEKS WITH THE FT1000MP
Message-ID: <199510032335.AAA13968@box.eunet.be>
TWO WEEKS EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEW FT1000MP
------------------------------------------
I have had the opportunity to evaluate one of the FT1000ZD rigs that are
sponsored by YAESU to be taken along to the HEARD Island DX-pedition in
November.
I have seen a few rumors about this new radio on Internet, but no "real
life" reports, so this may be interesting to all of you.
The FT1000MP weighs only 15 kg (33 lbs) vs. (ask your back, it will
remember) some 25.5 kg (51 lbs) for the FT1000ZD. Great! It has a switching
mode power-supply (no bulky heavy transformer), and the PA voltage is 13
Volts (vs. 28 V for the FT1000D). Hence the 100 Watt output power. But
nowadays you can drive two 3CX800's pants off with even much less than 100
Watts, so I do not see the 100 Watt power limit as a disadvantage.
The FT1000MP looks very much like the FT1000D. The two large VFO knobs are
in the same place, as well as the band keypad. In the FT1000MP you can now
individually select the IF filters in each IF (8.125 MHz and 455 KHz), just
like in the TS-850. Five selectivities are provided: 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 2.0
KHz, 2.4 KHz and 6.0 KHz.
The FT1000MP not only has (like the FT1000D) a separate receive-antenna
input, it also has two different transmit antenna outputs, selectable from
the front panel (maybe good for something, don't know what yet...).
The good old analog moving-coil S-meter is gone. It had to happen some day.
But now the sub-receiver also has a LCD-bar S-meter. Both are peak-hold
meters, where the hold time can be adjusted from 0 to 2000 mS. Nice feature.
The display panel looks a little crowded, but shows a lot. You can (to a
certain extend) even program what you show on the panel! It even has an
RTTY/Packet tuning indicator, but that's just a gadget.
Lets' talk about what makes a good radio: a good receiver. The FT1000MP has
three different RF amps stages! One is designed for the low bands (160, 80
and 40), and is optimized for strong signal handling. The second is
optimized for noise-figure (maximum sensitivity) and is used on 24 and 28
MHz. The third amplifier covers the remaining bands. This third amplifier
can also be selected to cover all bands. With the big 40 meter yagi pointed
at the Eastern European Megawatts on 40, I did notice some difference
between the "general purpose" preamp and the low-band optimized pre-amp.
Even without IPO (which means switching off the pre-amp) or inserting
attenuation, I could not detect any trace of intermod on 40 using the
special preamp. With the general purpose preamp, I could hear a slight trace
of crud.
A vast improvement over the FT1000D is that you no longer have to turn a
knob (the RX MIX) to switch from main to sub receiver audio. A small
push-button (AF REV) does the trick. Simple but efficient.
Then there is of course DSP. YAESU calls it EDSP (Enhanced DSP ...). It
works on the last IF, on the detector stages and on the audio stages on
receive, and also on the microphone preamp chain on transmit.
On transmit one can select from four fifferent pre-emphasis curves. The
cheap sounding hand-held mike that comes with the FT1000MP (sounds basy,
hollow etc.) is turned into a Heil like mike with the EDSP. On the air tests
confirmed that no difference could be found between my Heil boomsetr mike
and the hand-held with EDSP!
On receive, there are two concentric knobs that control de DSP function. One
selector allows you to choose between 4 different noise reduction algorithms
(optimized for either random noise, QRN, man made noise etc.), while the
other knob selects 4 filter options: band-pass, high-pass, low-pass or
band-reject. The FT1000ZD DSP works at least as good as any of the external
DSP filters I have so far used at my station, and is of course much more
convenient to use, as it is controled by one of the microprocessors and
automatically adjusts itself to the operating mode (CW, SSB, RTTY etc). The
DSP of course also eliminates any number of carriers that may pop up in the
pass band on SSB.
A very large number of operating parameters can be adjusted by the operator
from the front panel by microprocessor control (similar to TS850). When
doing so, the diplay panel shows the parameters in the frequency display
windows, while adjustments are done by the two VFO knobs and the memory
slector knob. Most of the parameters can be adjusted "real time". This for
instance allows you to select the best audio pre-emphasis curve for your
particular voice and microphone. You can also adjust the transmit-receive
switching times to match you amplifier in QSK operation. Together with a
good monitor scope this allows you to adjust the setup for fastest response
without relay arcing. You can even shift the carrier position on the
IF-filters to your taste! In total 81 parameters can be adjusted with this
method.
Despite all of this, the FT1000MP still is a radio, and not a computer. If
feels very much like the FT1000D, and its operating convenience is identical
or even better.
The FT1000MP has a full-fledged CW keyer built in (full weight control,
automatic letter spacing, number insertion for contests, and 10 message
buffers). However, the control of these buffers is done from a keypad which
is NOT provided with the FT1000MP, and which is not even an option (yet ??).
But it is is very easy to construct, and details are given in the manual.
One great improvement, is that the CW pitch is adjustable (in 50 Hz steps)
from the front panel (from 300 to 1050 Hz). Changing the pitch automatically
changes the relevant frequencies of the DSP filters etc. (everything is
"gang-tuned"). The FT1000MP now also has selectable sideband on CW (nice
feature!), which was first introduced on the TS850.
The FT1000MP is excellent on the digital modes. The EDSP filters work very
well on RTTY. All usual tones and shifts can be selected through the menu
selection method as described above. The FT1000MP also has FSK input.
The connectors and pin-outs on the back of the FT1000MP are 100% compatible
with what is used on the FT1000D. The transceiver also supports the digital
voice keyer DVS-2.
The FT1000MP has a built-in level-converter for the CAT interface. A 9-pin
(DB9) connector is provided for direct connection to a serial port of the
computer. However, the instruction set for the FT1000MP is NOT the same as
for the FT1000D. This means that the FT1000MP does not work with the current
software programs that work well for the FT1000D. YAESU USA (Chip Margelli)
is aware of this, and I have been told is working on it.
When you open the FT1000MP, it is amazing how much less crowded the radio
looks than the FT1000D. The big wiring harnesses that connect the PC boards
are gone. One small wiring harness is all what's left in the bottom
compartment. Many boards are however connected with flex-prints. The new
FT1000MP looks like a well engineered piece of equipment. The diecast
aluminum front panel has been replaced with a plastic cast front panel,
whick is likely to be more scratch resistant than the painted panel from the
FT1000D. The styling is very nice, and follows the latest trend of curved
lines and shapes that we witness in the car industry!
Conclusion: the FT1000MP is every bit as good or better than the FT1000D. It
has a very quiet receiver, and the ESDP makes it even quieter! It produces
excellent audio on SSB,and a very nice keying waveform on CW.
I am happy to see that the Japanese manaufacturers have reversed the trend
of designing and producing ever more expensive radios. I have heard the
price with all filters is in the $3,200 bracket, and I think this is the
right price. At this price, the FT1000MP will soon replace the FT1000D at my
station (also the OT5T contest station). Although YEASU does not see it as
the replacement for the FT1000D (which they will continu producing), I am
convinced the new FT1000MP will very rapidly replace the Ft1000D and other
transceivers in many shacks!
No, this is not a YAESU add, but I cannot find anything wrong with the new
radio, except that the CAT instruction set does not match the FT1000D's set.
As long as that problem is not resolved, I will HAVE to stick to my old
trusty FT1000D, although In wiched I could keep the radio in my shack. But
as I know, this radio will probably give me a new one on 160 (Heard), I know
it will serve a good purpose...
73
John, ON4UN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john.devoldere@box.eunet.be
Call us in all major 1995 contests: OT5T or ON4UN
John Devoldere (ON4UN-AA4OI)
POBOX 41
B-9000 Ghent (Belgium)
>From broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan) Wed Oct 4 01:49:31 1995
From: broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Subject: 91B info in response to W0UN
Message-ID: <199510040049.SAA26351@uucp-1.csn.net>
Garry, thanks for the thoughtful and concise note adding a lot of detail to
the 91B experiences that I had only heard about second (third?) hand.
Clearly there was more going on with the 91B on Conway than I saw at Easter.
I have also had a private communication with Peter, ON6TT, about the amps
and his experiences, which provides a little more insight. And in a reply
to him I asked for info on contacting other users directly to gain more
insight and your note is especially timely and helpful.
I can only comment with any authority on what I saw on Easter, of course.
My extrapolation to other expeditions was based on input from W4ETO
directly, based on what he had heard. But Dick said that they were never
able to duplicate the reported problems in the lab (when using one amp)
which lends credibility to my experiences that it was a combination of amps
that was needed to generate the circumstances that I saw on Easter. Dick
said before I left that of the first 100 production units shipped that they
had had only 4 problems to resolve from customers, which is a very low
figure, especially for a new product and would seem to indicate that the
production units are performing well in the field. The units on Easter were
pre-production units and the same units that were used on various recent
expeditions. But I don't know how many mods were made in the production
units that may or may not have been retrofitted to the Easter amps. I do
know that the Easter amps were still running the old style power supply
rectifier board that was changed for production units.
>What you say is plausible in general and clearly correlates with what
>you observed on Easter. However, in our case, the amplifier was
>operated both under the conditions stated above--two stations using
>tribanders---AND with one station using a tribander and the other using
>a lowband vertical.
>
>In the latter instance, the typical late-night scenario had a station
>with a TL922 putting out 300-400W into a north-beaming C3 tribander on
>20m SSB, while the 91B drove an 80m quarter/wave/160m droop-wire
>inverted-L, mostly ENE of the tribander. I would argue that the amount
>of power induced in the lowband vertical was not large, although the
>combination of coupling and feedline length may have produced an
>unexpected voltage level at the 91B.
An additional scenario for the shutdowns that I have attributed to the VSWR
circuitry is basically the same problem but with the RF from the 2nd rig
getting into the arc fault circuitry and shutting down for that reason. The
arc fault circuit samples the rf output and the rf input and compares the
two to confirm that the amp is providing some minimum gain as well as
driving the tuning display. The gain can be inadequate if the amp is
severely mistuned and this circuit prevents the arcing over of the plate and
load caps. I could envision stray rf reducing the apparent output level and
confusing the circuit into thinking that the gain was below a minimum but
this seems a little less likely since the "apparent reflected" would need on
the order of the true forward power. But it is a scenario that needs to be
confirmed by running two rigs in close proximity and when the problem is
noted then the various protection circuits can be defeated until it is
confirmed which one is responsible for the faulting. I will provide info on
this additional possibility to ETO later today.
>Unaddressed by your argument was the progressive nature of the 91B's
>failure in our case. When first deployed, our unit was reluctant to put
>out full power, but did provide at least 500W without turning itself
>off. We blamed the AC supply because we had 100 feet of power cord from
>the 3 kVA Robin diesel generator. The power cords were the beefiest we
>could find in Suva, but were not very heavy gauge--14 at best (maybe
>even 16). This corresponds to a 2.5 kW load capability, at least--but a
>static load. We ran a separate power cord for the other loads, to
>minimize the current in that power cord; no difference was noted. We
>felt that the ohmic drop in the lines was not sufficient to cause the
>demise of the amp, and looked for dynamic causes.
I was not aware of a "progressive nature" of your experiences and was only
aware of repeated drop outs. We were running similar lengths of mains cable
on Easter, with one being used solely for the amp at 240 vac and the other
being used for all 120 vac circuits. The wire was standard Romex and I
believe it was #12 (but may have been #14), so clearly the electrical
distribution on Easter was a little more robust.
>We did observe that the meter on the generator was steady during
>keying, but this of itself proves nothing. After all, a sudden change
>in load is not instantaneously compensated by an electromechanical
>system with high inertia, such as a diesel generator. Ehrhorn, at
>Visalia, offered the opinion that the short-term difference between
>what the amplifier demanded at key-down, and what the generator could
>provide at that moment--i.e. essentially the current it was providing
>before key-down--was confusing/confounding the protective circuitry.
The demands placed on a generator by a rapidly varying current load from a
keyed or ssb modulated amplifier are especially difficult for a generator
since the time constant of the varying load is much faster than the time
constant of the response time of the mechanical governors on generators.
This can be helped by running oversize generators (where the mass of the
generator itself provides an additional flywheel effect) but this is
difficult on an expedition. It is also important to minimize the percentage
change from min load to max load by running as much on the generator as
possible so that max load is near the capacity of the generator by running
lights and other gear even during the daytime to increase the current drawn
under "min load"--ie amp not keyed. This reduces the range over which the
governor needs to to work and makes sure that the generator is not coasting
during receive periods.
In addition to the potential (sorry) for voltage drop when the generator is
hit with a peak demand load, there is also the problem associated with the
frequency of the AC dropping significantly until the governor gets the
engine back up to speed.
A 3KW diesel generator seems very marginal for the varying demands of an
amplifier, but diesels seem to be a little more conseratively rated than
home use gasoline type generators. In any case I know that ETO rented a
generator to run an amp in an attempt to recreate the problems but they
weren't able to duplicate the reported problems. The Easter generators were
5 KW gasoline units.
>
>It took quite a while for the shipped amplifier to reach San Francisco
>from Suva--over a month--whereupon it was returned to ETO. When
>considerable time passed with no word from Colorado about what had been
>found, I inquired about it to Ray Heaton. Several times, in fact. Ray
>did not know or would not say---a response which has been noted and
>commented upon by others who have called ETO with inquiries/problems.
>Finally, I was connected to an engineer, whose name and title escape
>me. This individual claimed some knowledge of the evaluation of the amp
>but seemed--to me--somewhat vague and imprecise about it. He did state
>that he "thought" they had found that all five paralleled emitter
>degeneration resistors had popped, presumably in sequence, which would
>plausibly explain the progression of the amp's demise. He added that
>those resistors had since been changed in all production units, but I
>have no idea which ones might have been in the EI/SyG units. He offered
>no intelligence as to why the initial problem had been experienced.
I was momentarily confused by "emitter" resistors in a vacuum tube amp but I
assume that transistor terminology has become pervasive and that you mean
the cathode resistors, which I believe have been changed and that the Easter
amps may have had this mod retrofitted to them--I recall something to this
effect while I was there for the one-day tutorial, but I will have to check
to be sure. Possibly the engineer you spoke to was Chris Mason, who seems
to be very knowledgeable about the amp, especially the control and
monitoring circuitry. But the progressive failure of the cathode resistors
doesn't explain the time delay that you noted between amp switching and the
appearance of power.
>I should explain to those less familiar with amp design than yourself
>that emitter degeneration--resistance in the emitter lead in a
>grid-driven amplifier--provides negative feedback, resulting in
>somewhat higher plate efficiency, slightly compromised IMD and lowered
>power gain--a safeguard in cases where too much drive is available. A
>portion of the drive voltage is developed across the emitter
>resistance, so more drive is required.
Unbypassed cathode resistors do provide negative feedback (ie degeneration)
and result in more drive being required but in a grid driven amp with lots
of drive this is not a bug but a feature since you are throwing away most of
your drive power in the untuned grid resistor anyway. Any change in plate
efficiency one way or the other is so small as to be a wash--especially in
view of the requirement to add some series resistance in the plate lead to
limit the energy dissipated inside the tube during an arc over. Typically
this plate resitor will be on the order of 50 ohms and a cathode bias
resistor will be about 1/5 of this value. With only a few watts disipation
required in the cathode resistor this is pretty insignificant compared to
the 2 kilowatts of anode input power.
But I must disagree with you on the statement of slightly compromised IMD
statement when using catode resistors. In fact Collins used negative
feedback from cathode resistors to improve the IMD by up to 5 dB in their
commercial products. Cathode resistor effects on IMD are complex and two
quotes from Eimac's paper titled "An Eimac Family of 4CX600 Tetrodes"
illustrates the point. (This paper is chosen since the tube under
discussion is similar to the Svetlana tube used in the 91B.) Under Figure 7
it states "Curves illustrate third order products. The curves are plots of
intermodulation distortion at different levels of power output. As the
drive level is decreased, the distortion products pass through maxima and
minima points. Misleading conclusions of tube performance may be drawn if
the tube happens to be tested near a cusp on the intermodulation curve where
a particular product drops to an extremely low level. The whole operating
range of the tube must be examined to draw a true picture of intermodulation
distortion performance, as shown in the above curves." And the second
quote from later in the text states that "For the lowest levels of
intermodulation distortion, the use of an unbypassed cathode resistor and
grid driven service, such as shown in Figure 8 is recommended." The Eimac
design uses 11 ohms for the 4CX600J and the ETO 91B uses 12 ohms for the
Svetlana 4CX800, which is a pretty close match to Eimac's design.
>In summary, I am not convinced that coupled power from our other
>station was the cause of our 91B problem on Conway Reef, although I do
>not doubt your observations on Easter Island. Nor am I satisfied that
>our problems were the result of a single cause. Nor am I convinced that
>generator dynamics were not a factor, even if the perceived situation
>was not successfully recreated at ETO.
>
Sure sounds like you had other problems that may have been taken care of by
any changes in the cathode bias resistors. I will check this out in detail
so that you and everyone else has as good an overview of the amp as possible
and a comfortable feeling about the Heard Island trip.
>This parallels my own experience. The amp appeared sturdily built,
>although it appeared that it had already been found that the internal
>blower was not quite enough to provide the famous Alpha
>"brick-on-the-key" output capability for steady-state (RTTY) operation
>at 1500W. Our unit had the optional axial "supercharger" fan fitted to
>provide extra cooling air volume. Tuning the amp was straightforward
>and, as you said, virtually idiot-proof.
I am a firm believer in keeping things cool for long term reliability and
have added the external fans on all of my Alpha amps. But I have been known
to overkill things to the extreme.
>
>I had used the amplifier for several days at my home QTH before packing
>and shipping it. I had found that it had plenty of reserve power
>capability and--except for the added fan--was reasonably quiet. Home
>and commercial mains are, of course, not a coral reef. The DXpedition
>group had planned to fire it up with the generator and transceiver in
>Suva for a full-bore test before embarking for Conway Reef.
>Unfortunately, the air shipment from California including the amp was
>delayed and arrived--with me tearing my hair-- barely in time to be
>loaded on board the Te Ni and that shakedown never occurred.
Easter had similar problems (endemic with all dx-peditioners I guess) when
the ship date was moved forward and the shakedown was only a limited version
of what was planned. In our case only a few cables were missing.
>>Would I buy one? YES, but I already own two 87As.
>
>Well, I might, after the early problems settle out. But--since I am
>poor but proud--I am going to build an amp instead. It will have a
>Russian tetrode.
>
I have to admit that I am a homebrew fan as well and I am building a number
of single band 8877 amps. I chose the 8877 since I had a lot of pulls left
over from atmospheric radar projects. If I were to go out and buy new tubes
I would choose the Svetlana tubes at this point due to their price
differential. I feel that they are good tubes at a bargain price. Eimac
tubes in general are also good tubes but are becomming prohibitively
expensive for ham use, unfortunately.
>The unit we had was the very same unit used with no problems on South
>Georgia Island a few months earlier. Why it crapped out on us remains a
>mystery, in my mind. I hope---as does Jun, JH4RHF, a fellow
>DX-peditioner at Conway who is is Heard Island-bound---that the Heard
>Island gang will have the same good fortune you experienced on Easter
>Island.
>
I will try to work closely with the Heard group to insure reliable operation
of the 91Bs. My support is available both before the expedition and during
it. I feel pretty knowledgeable about the amps but obviously not as
knowledgeable as the designers at ETO.
Again thanks for your input and I will continue uncover any and all of the
problems with the 91B and provide feedback to ETO as well as to the dx and
contest communities.
(BTW this has become a pretty long winded esoteric technical discussion that
may be best done off the reflector with only the bottom line being posted
here. Please provide any additonal input directly to me (applies to anyone
with something to say) and I will post a summary later if warranted.)
73 John W0UN
John Brosnahan W0UN
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz@csn.net
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Wed Oct 4 04:01:56 1995
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: Virtual Barn-raising
Message-ID: <199510040301.UAA21016@ix.ix.netcom.com>
Last weekend I finished installation of my Force 12 C-3 atop 100 feet of
Rohn 25G. Nothing special to many people on this reflector, but indulge me
just a moment to explain (and to explain the title of this message).
Over a year ago, I posted a message on this reflector asking comments on my
plan for a modest single-tower contest station. The responses from many of
you, including top contesters for whom such an installation is almost
laughably small, were extremely helpful and generous. In the months since,
many more questions about rotators, guying, pier-pin vs. embedded bases,
lightning protection and so on have elicited similar responses.
As a result, I changed the basing method I had planned, changed the
insulation of the guy wires, added considerable additional lightning
protective measures, selected a rotator, and added 20 feet to the tower
height (!). I don't know for sure how well it works yet (anything sounds
good after a ground-level R-5) but feel confident that each of the changes
you suggested were improvements.
Just like our forefathers, who could count on the entire community for help
when it was time to raise a barn, I feel as if all of you were out there
with me these last few weekends putting up this antenna, along with the
local guys who also gave very generously of their time. I guess I can't
agree with Cliff Stoll's complaint that the Internet dilutes the feeling of
community. for me, it's had the opposite effect.
Thanks, and see you in the pileups.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com *** please note new address ***
>From ae2t@localnet.com (Al Gritzmacher) Wed Oct 4 07:16:11 1995
From: ae2t@localnet.com (Al Gritzmacher) (Al Gritzmacher)
Subject: CFZ & WB1HBB
Message-ID: <Chameleon.951004022739.ae2t@>
WB1HBB wrote:
===========================================
>The weekend after Hurricane Luis hit the northern Leeward Islands, there was
a EU contest (WAE
maybe?). I had been spending 12 hours/day handling emergency and priority
traffic between the US
and those islands.
>There were many US stations participating in this contest and I must admit,
there were five or more
frequencies on 20m in use throughout the first week of the aftermath.
>Now I had been following the CFZ thread for some time and was quite
convinced that the
gentlemen on this side of the pond would make every attempt not to cause
interference to the many
nets in progress.
>However, that did not happen. Of the dozens of requests that I made for
contesting stations to
move up/down a little due to the nature of the nets, only a handful responded
as I would have
hoped. The majority either ignored the request or told me what I could do
with the net.
<<<<<<The rest is deleted because you've read it already>>>>>>
>Warren, WB1HBB
wrothberg@mv.mv.com
============================================
Warren,
First of all, let me say that I have the utmost sympathy for what you have
written about regarding the
incidents during the Luis Emergency. Also, I was not active in the contest,
but was aware of it being
held, as I was aware of the hurricane emergency. However, even though I was
aware of both these
conditions, I must wonder, had I been active in the contest, would it have
crossed my mind to check
for the emergency nets? Would I have been easily able to find out where they
were operating and
avoid them? Should I have copied W1AW bulletins prior to the contest in order
to be informed of the
possibility of this? Do I have enough to do in getting ready for a
contest?!!!
While I can honestly say, had I blundered upon ANY emergency operation during
the course of a
contest, or any operating, I would have made note of it and given it wide
berth. I can't condone the
abusive response to your requests for these stations to move. However, I can
understand them.
Perhaps it was due to the fact that this whole "get off my frequency,
contester" attitude has become
a hot potato lately. Perhaps, the stations you asked had been told that on
umpteen other
frequencies they had tried to use in the previous half-hour.
Frankly, so many groups have been "crying wolf" about contesting taking
"their" frequency, that by
and large, the contesting community has become defensive about this and
reacts negatively, no
matter what the reason.
I can't remember ever hearing an emergency net in operation that didn't
experience interference,
even deliberate interference, even during times when no contesting was taking
place. Could the
contest just have added to the normal congestion of the band? Isn't
interference a fact of life, one
that must be taken in stride?
Maybe what we need is not a "contest free zone", but a special block of
frequencies set aside for
only emergency use? (And another for DX nets, and another for SSTV, and
another ... )
The whole subject has gotten blown out of proportion and contesting is
getting a bad rap from
it even though it has been pointed out how little of the time and how little
of the total space
available to hams is taken up by contests.
Many contests have been run with "suggested frequencies" given in the rules,
and the contest
seems to only follow them if participation is so small that stations must
start at those frequencies just
to find any other stations in the contest! With a larger contest, it
invariably expands in proportion to
the number of stations participating. In other words, the activity only takes
as much space as it
needs! What more could you ask for?
Frankly, a contest free zone, won't work. It won't contain the larger
contests that fill an entire band. It
won't satisfy those groups whose "private frequency" doesn't happen to fall
in the contest free zone.
It won't appease those who oppose contesting altogether, and there are many
who do, in their own
selfish, myopic way.
This reminds me of a station I heard on during the beginning of September,
during the ARRL Hiram
Maxim Commemorative. This station appeared on a frequency, apparently for a
schedule with his
son. He spent about 15 minutes calling his son, saying how he couldn't hear
him through the
"contest" and berating the station on the frequency (out on the West coast
and not at all bothered
by his presence - probably couldn't hear him) for QRMing him and his
schedule. I had heard the
west coast station at least a half-hour prior to this and he was working many
stations for the HPM
event. The fact that the west coast station had been there all along didn't
seem to cross the
schedule guy's mind. He simply cursed the "contester" and all contests in
general as he attempted
to reach his son under conditions that weren't very good in the first place.
The fact that the HPM
event wasn't really a contest didn't seem to matter either.
That's the kind of attitude that is out there and rampant that is fueling
this whole issue. I don't mean
to imply that a contester who wouldn't move for your emergency net was right.
I can't excuse that.
But I am saying that there is a large number of our fellow hams who seem to
like to make sport of
bashing contests and contesters because they don't personally like contests
want to see them
eliminated. They have made such an issue of it that it is easy to see why
some contesters might
respond to your request with a less than civil manner.
Instead of condemning contesters for this, how about looking at the negative
atmosphere that exists
toward contests and blaming that for the knee-jerk reaction you received to
your request for a clear
frequency.
Al AE2T
ae2t@localnet.com
|