Chet,
Gene W3ZZ had a good summary of this in one of his World Above 50 MHz
columns in QST (which I have been trying to find through the ARRL's periodical
search tool and I'm turning up blanks).
Some of the main differences between VHF and HF contesting/operations
boil down to how much more difficult it is to find and contact other
stations on VHF than on HF, and how that changes operating behavior. On
VHF, the effective range of a modest station is much smaller geographic
footprint on 144 MHz and up than it is on, say, 20 meters. Antennas tend
to be much higher gain with sharper patterns, such that two stations within
range are less likely to hear each other unless their antennas are
pointed in the right directions. This is much more important for long
distance contacts. As a result of these differences, stations (a)
concentrate on a smaller range of frequencies, maybe even one "calling
frequency" for all contacts on a band, and (b) there is more widespread
use of skeds to coordinate contacts, especially on long distance meteor
scatter and EME work. Gene's article in QST states this much better than
I can - perhaps he can refresh our memory on the month it appeared in QST?
For an HF contester, a critical part of the QSO making process is
finding the other station, and one must make decisions about whether to
call CQ or S&P, which way to turn the antenna or which antenna to use,
when to move frequencies/bands if the QRM is too bad or propagation changes,
etc. Pre-arranged skeds are basically never used in my experience. On VHF+,
top operators of course do call CQ, tune the bands, and turn/switch the
antennas in an effort to find other stations to work, look for unusual
openings, etc. But, it's generally perceived as a lot more work for fewer
contacts in the log. There are some who would prefer to use real-time skeds
to find the other stations to work, and rely on the RF from their station
to merely confirm that a communications path between the two stations exists,
which in many marginal path contacts can be a lot of work in and of itself.
To those with considerable HF contesting experience, this is "internet
contesting" as much as it is "radio contesting".
Not all VHF contesters are in the pro-real-time-skeds camp, and not
all HF contesters would necessarily object if VHF contesting went in that
direction. As with everything else, there are a lot of opinions out there.
There is however, a huge cultural gap between the two camps in the debate,
and they often talk past each other. Referring to debate opponents as
"HF'ers" could be an effort to minimalize their perceived credibility in
the debate, for example.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:38:22PM -0400, Chet, N8RA wrote:
> Sometimes in discussions on this contesting reflector I've seen statements
> of "like HF'ers" and I do not know what that means.
>
> Can someone explain to me what is implied by that term so that I can better
> appreciate the reference?
> Some specific examples of the differences would be quite helpful.
> Off-line is OK, and if so, I will respect your confidentiality.
>
> Thanks and 73,
>
> Chet, N8RA
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|