A lot of it depends on where you live. If you are in a grid like EM55,
it is going to be a cold day in hell before you make any/many contacts
on 1296 which I am running. However, 222 is another matter. I don't
think ANYONE should be without it for various reasons. Propagation
being one but supporting the band just as important.
Steve, N4JQQ, EM55
Zack Widup wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, John Geiger wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> I think I'd add 1296. 222 is a lot of fun but I think there are less
> people active on 222 and 1296 is more of a challenge.
>
> > 2. If money and space were no object.
>
> In that case I'd probably add all the bands I didn't have from 222 through
> 3456 at least.
>
> >
> > Or, would you be better off using the money to improve
> > your existing setup and just staying on 6, 2 and 432?
>
> I guess it depends on what you want to do. If you want to go for EME on
> those bands, you'd definitely want to improve your setup. If you want to
> work greater distances via MS, etc., the antenna farm could definitely be
> improved. If you want to "make your own openings" you'd want to improve
> the antennas ans power levels. But 100 watts and single beams will get you
> quite far during decent openings.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> ------
> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
|