I agree with W4DEX. It could also be said that lack of activity should be
construed as an excellent reason FOR being on 222 and 902 because
If you don't use it, you could loose it. Obviously the more people who do
get on, the more activity there will be.
7 3,
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <johngeig@yahoo.com>
To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; <wsvhf@mailman.qth.net>;
<vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:09
Subject: [WSVHF] Adding another band
>
> I am interested in receiving comments on the following
> for my own interest, as well as for a possible VHF
> club newsletter item.
>
> If you were currently active on the "Big 3" VHF/UHF
> bands (6, 2, 70cm) running 100 watts on each band with
> moderate sized antennas-13 elements on 2 and 16
> elements on 432, what band would you add next:
>
> 1. If you were limited to $500-$600 for equipment and
> antennas
> 2. If money and space were no object.
>
> Or, would you be better off using the money to improve
> your existing setup and just staying on 6, 2 and 432?
>
> 73s John NE0P
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WSVHF mailing list
> WSVHF@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/wsvhf
>
|