How about 20-40-160 meters? Let's don't give up on the low bands...just
75!!!
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, David C. Patton wrote:
> I agree with KM9P and KF3P and KM0L and everybody else lamenting the
> difficulties of 80M during the SSB Sprints. However, as N7AVK says
> we shouldn't give up our ground to miscreants.
>
> I think the nature of the SSb Sprint is dealing with 80 Meters. To
> me, it is much the same as battling for space on 20 SSB. Very
> difficult. Actually, I will take 80 M SSB in the sprint over 20 SSB
> in CQWW any day.
>
> However, I would certainly support Ty's idea of a 15, 20 and 40 meter
> contest that used the times from 2000-2359Z. This is pretty good
> timing for all concerned, especially the west coast, avoids 80 meters
> and presents the same type of propagation difficulties we experience
> already--such as long propagation on 20 and 40. Except 15 takes over
> for 20 and 40 for 80. In the midwest we can't work much other than
> the coasts anyway. At least we would have a shot at working some of
> our locals during these times. This year I couldn't hear any locals
> on any band.
>
> Another suggestion for the present maladies is to spread out across
> the band a little more. Both 40 and 80 we presently seem to use only
> about 25 KHz of the band.
>
> 73, Dave Patton, WX3N
> mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
|