[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] A Q's and Mult's vs. frequency study

To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com, nlrs@mailman.qth.net,badgercontesters@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [VHFcontesting] A Q's and Mult's vs. frequency study
From: Duane Grotophorst <n9dg@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
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 closely at
the frequency vs. Q?s/grids for all of my contacts on
the 50 ? 432 Mhz bands.

The table below focuses on 144 Mhz because these Q?s
are mostly the result of answering other?s CQ calls
(plus search and pounce), or from stations who
answered my CQ?s. I did not log which Q?s were the
result of which (calling CQ vs. answering calls /
S&P). The other 3 bands had a much higher percentage
of QSY?ing to them for ?running the bands? kind
activity so that data isn?t as telling since most ops
will tend to QSY to frequencies away from the calling
frequencies anyhow. 

Claimed N9DG (EN53bj) ARRL January VHF SS Q and grid
totals by frequency ranges relative to 144.200 Mhz.

Frequency ---- Q's - M's - %Q's - %M's - M/Q 
144.200 Mhz --- 27 - 10 -- 19% -- 26% -- 0.37 
+/- 1-5 Khz --- 20 -- 5 -- 14% -- 13% -- 0.25 
+/- 6-10 Khz -- 23 -- 5 -- 16% -- 13% -- 0.22 
+/- 11-15 Khz - 32 -- 8 -- 22% -- 21% -- 0.25 
+/- 16-20 Khz - 11 -- 4 --- 8% -- 10% -- 0.36 
+/- 21-25 Khz -- 6 -- 2 --- 4% --- 5% -- 0.33 
+/- 26-30 Khz - 13 -- 2 --- 9% --- 5% -- 0.15 
+/- 31-35 Khz -- 7 -- 2 --- 5% --- 5% -- 0.29 
+/- 36-50 Khz -- 4 -- 1 --- 3% --- 3% -- 0.25 
Totals ------- 143 - 39 ---------------- 0.27 

Percentages in the above table may not total exactly
100% due to rounding errors. "M/Q" is the multiplier
per Q ratio. 

The frequency data presented here is estimated to be
accurate within +/-1 Khz of the actual frequency, the
possible error sources include rounding errors in
Microsoft Excel, N4PY Pegasus control software, and
the WriteLog contest logging software. Additionally
the transverters have not been precisely calibrated

All of my 2 Meter QSO?s for this contest were within
50 Khz of 144.200. And all Q?s were SSB/CW only, none
were pre-arranged schedules and only a few of them
were the result of a QSY from another band (the exact
number of such Q?s was not recorded). The amount of
time that the RX/TX VFO was on 144.200 vs. the other
frequencies was not tracked either. The software
configuration that I'm now using doesn?t allow for
tracking of that data.

It is interesting to note that approximately 50% of
both my Q?s and new (or only time worked) multipliers
were made on frequencies that were more than 10 Khz
away from 144.200. And nearly 20% of them were more
than 20 Khz away from the calling frequency. I really
have to wonder how many Q?s and multipliers that the
folks who only cling to within 10 Khz of 144.200 are
actually missing? But the table also shows the classic
crowding near 144.200, with a fairly constant downward
taper of Q?s and multipliers from there. The slight
bump in the 26-30 range can be primarily attributed to
rover activity where the rovers used the same main
frequency of operation as they moved from grid to

I only called CQ on 144.200 when I could neither find
nor stir up any activity on the frequencies that were
further removed. Unfortunately though I did spend more
time on 144.200 than I would have really liked to
have. It was also frustrating to only hear some
stations on or very near 144.200, so that was often
the only place I could work them. Some of them I
couldn?t work at all because I was buried in their
local QRM and they could not hear me, - though I could
often hear them just fine. If they had been willing to
tune around a bit they would have likely found me
calling CQ some 15+ Khz away from the calling
frequency and we probably could have worked. By a
similar token I could be calling CQ for dozens of
times on a frequency that is a distance away from
144.200 and get no responses at all, but as soon as I
would call CQ on 144.200 I often got a response within
just a few calls. Frustrating to say the least.

2M station line up:
Ten Tec Pegasus (x2), N4PY control software (dual
Pegasus mode), DEMI 144-28 transverter, Mirage B3016,
100ft 1-5/8? hardline, Cushcraft 17B2 @ 72 feet. The
one Pegasus is dedicated to providing a continuous
150Khz spectrum sweep every 4-5 seconds. The other
Pegasus is the RX/TX IF radio.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
VHFcontesting mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [VHFcontesting] A Q's and Mult's vs. frequency study, Duane Grotophorst <=