Zack Widup wrote:
>
> I have nothing against the CU2QSO approach. The only thing about it is
> that it uses FM packet (that's true, correct?). FM packet is inherently
> less sensitive than weak-signal modes. So if I hear and manage to work a
> guy that's S0 on CW (just above the ESP level, let's say), then there's no
> way I'd have been able to work him on CU2QSO.
Hi Zack,
Excellent intuition! (I mean that sincerely) In fact, CU2QSO is not the be-all
and end-all that some folks are making it. However...it's still quite
powerful. Let me explain.
The short explanation:
CU2QSO isn't intended to provide you with S-0 QSO's. It is intended to provide
you QSO's with stations that you may have otherwise not noticed, even though
they are plainly "in range" by all other accounts. This system does not replace
the digging for weak signals that you do as a regular part of contesting. It is
just another resource...it's not the "only" resource. :)
The long explanation:
Rovers go to hilltops. That's where they can be heard by the most number of
people...including the great unwashed masses of us that don't live on hilltops.
That alone will increase their effective range as compared to two
valley-dwellers trying to make a simplex packet QSO.
Now...think from the perspective of the Rover (where the real power of the
system comes to play). You have two Rovers...both on hilltops. One of the
biggest problems of being a rover is finding other rovers! This problem is
*greatly* reduced with CU2QSO.
Compare Packet to CW or WSJT...of course CW and WSJT wins...when one considers
ability to communicate over long distances with marginal signal levels. Yet,
let's not forget the number of QSO's that were never made even though a Rover
was in "easy QSO" range...because they never got noticed (this is a HUGE problem
in the North...where no one seems to remember that VE-land is ready, willing and
able to make QSO's). In fact...two years ago...a VE rover showed up
unexpectedly on my CU2QSO screen. I'd have missed the QSO had it not been for
that system. It works!
Actual range? In my area of the country...CU2QSO has an effective range of
2-grids, radially (my grid and the 8 that surround it). That has been observed
with Rover power of 50-watts and a 1/4 wave vertical antenna and a simple 1/2
wave vertical at my station, at 20'. Could we get to 3-grids or 4-grids
radially if a smart rover put a 160-watt brick on their system and used a
4-element beam? We never got a chance to try it...but we will. :) I even have
a way for you to test your station for range by using the APRS network as a test
bed...but that's a subject better left to the BEACONet email remailer (join it
on the website).
Is the range greater in Nebraska, due to terrain issues? I dunno...but why not
try? :) This system is cheap to install and easy to use. Give it a try!
Kind regards,
Ev, W2EV
|