Just knowing that they are there is also motivation, no matter what changes there may ultimately be in VHF contesting the last thing we would want to see is a discouragement to adding bands at any st
I suspect that the first may indeed exist but I have yet to see it from here. I can't see how it could be at all rewarding for those who would, especially the "captive" rover. Actually as little as 2
I remember that June 1992 VHF QSOP was really good on 6M, I worked 6M VUCC in a little over 24 hours time. If I recall correctly all I was only running 150W to 3 elements (with armstrong rotator). Du
I really don't think scoring CW differently than SSB is a good idea. As some others have pointed out or questioned is how do you deal with mixed mode contacts? I usually make several in every contest
I'm not sure I agree, while it may not discourage adding new bands for a better score it will discourage the building of a better station as far as antennas go. The last thing we want to do is discou
It is the same dilemma we out in the weeds face today on whether to operate HP vs. LP category. I'd love to be running high power now already but the gain in Q's and mults I'd get by having higher po
There isn't a lot in southern WI either, but it is on my road map to get on to some of them soon. Why? Because there are guys like Mike who are already on those bands. EN13 should be quite workable f
If this is implemented there will be many who will stay with small antennas with broader patterns but run relativley high power (just to be able to stay in the "Low ERP" category). So then the bands
Does anyone have a way to calculate distances bewteen grid squares using Microsoft Excel? It's not that important to have a high degree of accuracy but I do want to have a way to determine the approx
Correct, I am looking at a whole series of grids in a spreadsheet. The good news is that I do now have what I am looking for and am in the process of crunching some numbers which will relate the numb
I think that there are quite a few who do fit this profile. Additionally there are the "run and gun" style rovers who may be cruising along a highway that takes them back and forth between two grids
I would simply make it a 4 band category that *includes* 222. We simply do not want to exclude 222 which would only strengthen the perception that it is not a worthwhile band to have, not true. This
Please excuse the length of this post and sorry about some of the cross posting to those who are on multiple reflectors. I do like much of what I see in the proposal and I do agree with the three bas
Don't know if it is a singular "solution" but how about basing points strictly on the distance between 6 digit grids? So a group of rovers circling a mile or so apart will only get the "3-4 mile poin
No, not really if you stop and think about it. One of the foundation premises of ham radio contesting is to push the capability limits of our stations on a *technical* level for the gear that we use
The station setup I ran for the 2004 January ARRL VHF SS allowed me to automatically log both the frequency and mode quite accurately for all of my contest contacts. So it has given me a way to look
A great around solution that is completely within the spirit and intent of the rules is to use gear that has spectrum display capability. For 2M for example simply set it up to watch a continuous spa
As far out there as this idea may seem at first it really does have a lot of merit. What better way to expose many more ops from the "DC" folks below 30MHz and the "Joe HT" crowd; those who would not
Mike, Cross mode contacts are perfectly fine, and are in fact quite common. As far as I know they are permitted in just about all of the various VHF contests that there are. I usually end up making a
-- Mike Tessmer <mike.tessmer@hillmangroup.com> wrote: Yes indeed. One of the things I've learned in VHF conesting over the years is to try and work somebody as soon as you first hear them. All too o