Hello Kevin,
I have a 2m-to-6m transverter, commercially made, that is surplus to my
needs.
Email if you’re interested
73, Kermit W9XA W9XA@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, 18:39, vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
wrote:
Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
vhfcontesting@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
vhfcontesting-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IC-905 6m (ve3kh@icloud.com)
2. Re: [NEWSVHF] Here's a Proposed Solution for Digital/Analog
Operating (Zack Widup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:47:43 -0400
From: <ve3kh@icloud.com>
To: "'Christopher Arthur'" <kt4xa@yahoo.com>, "'VHF Contesting'"
<vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] IC-905 6m
Message-ID: <004901dc2814$514dc360$f3e94a20$@icloud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Chris
TY for the reply.
Yes, I remember those ? and I believe there was also an SSB Electronics version.
Hard to find now.
73 KH
From: Christopher Arthur <kt4xa@yahoo.com>
Sent: September 17, 2025 2:09 PM
To: 'VHF Contesting' <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; ve3kh@icloud.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] IC-905 6m
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 08:17:07 AM CDT, VE3KH via VHFcontesting
<vhfcontesting@contesting.com <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> > wrote:
It would seem that some might want a 144 to 50 transverter so that one
doesn't need a second radio for 6m in VHF contests.
Any solutions?
Kevin,
It's been long discontinued, but there used to be an off-the-shelf solution to
what you're looking for: the Ten-Tec 1209 2m-to-6m transverter.
I see the Ten-Tec 1208 20-to-6m and 1210 10m-to-2m transverters for sale fairly
often at hamfests, but unfortunately, the 1209 is harder to find since it is
somewhat of an unusual application. It may still pay to be on the lookout on
the various swap sites, etc. There is one on eBay right now for $199 USD, but
that's significantly more than they were new!
73,
--Chris, NV4B
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 18:32:45 -0500
From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
To: VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] Here's a Proposed Solution for
Digital/Analog Operating
Message-ID:
<CANJxhWisRL2cjU1a_11hF6S9-HgFHqrTa+q6=b3PX_Q+mXdKZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I suspect there isn't much digital activity on 1296 or above in VHF+
contests. When I've gotten someone to run up the bands with me, I don't
recall anyone asking if it would be digital or SSB/CW. I know there are
WSJT modes used on 10 GHz to work EME, but I have not encountered any for
terrestrial communication.
Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 6:10?PM VE3KH via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> This thread is kind of funny ... but sad
>
> Fact ... the average age of a Ham is quite high ... the older we get, the
> less likely we are to change or be persuaded by others attempts to get us
> to do what they want.
>
> Back in the good old days
> ... I didn't like VHF Contests allowing FM QSO's ... stations in big
> cities that were willing to put up vertical antennas got lots of points for
> arranging / working local handhelds ... stupid I thought because the point
> was DX and farther grids ... I wasn't going to do that just to win.
> ... I personally don't operate much digital now ... I did some EME that
> way but it just isn't the same reward as hearing it with your ears.
>
> I agree the VHF bands seem dead on CW/SSB ... disappointing as many of you
> have pointed out ... but I don't think any rule changes are going to fix
> the split between Digital and Analog ... people are going to do what makes
> them happy.
>
> BUT ... consider this ... the 10GHz & Up Contest is this weekend ... not
> really any digital up there (yet) ... and 10GHz is AMAZING ... there are
> now quite a few modest stations that have worked 50 Grids or more. Back in
> the good old days we used to arrange 10GHz contacts on 2m ... I'd need a KW
> & 18 element yagi or more to make the contacts we routinely make on 10GHz.
> So come on up ... maybe this is the solution you are looking for !!!!
>
> 73 Kevin VE3KH
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+ve3kh=icloud.com@contesting.com>
> On Behalf Of Steve Hewlett via VHFcontesting
> Sent: September 17, 2025 12:44 PM
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] Here's a Proposed Solution for
> Digital/Analog Operating
>
> From WA2TEO's post:
>
> "Lastly, boycotting to make a point is , I believe self defeating. Imagine
> being on for your first contest and finding dismal activity because lot's
> of guys don't operate to make a point. It's really hard to find new blood
> in vhf contesting. Turning any new ops off isn't a good way to succeed. If
> we're frank about it, one of the issues since FT8 is that quite a few long
> term ops stopped operating since they didn't like it. Essentially they have
> been boycotting. I believe that is a contributor to lower analog activity.
> Why not just get on and have fun any way you enjoy? It's a VHF truism -
> activity breeds activity. A number of times this weekend I was on 6 or 2M
> ssb and didn't see any other stations on that mode."
>
> The above paragraph sums up the problem from my perspective. I only
> operate the traditional analog modes and have no desire to expand my
> horizons to computer-centric modes. I am not computer-phobic; I spent my
> career primarily as a language level computer programmer. In my spare time
> years ago I dabbled in machine language programming as well. By the time I
> retired I was really tired of staring at a computer screen and rarely use
> our home computer, mostly just for emails. As FT8 began to siphon available
> contest contacts away from the traditional analog modes I simply stopped
> participating starting in January 2020. My attitude towards FT8 is that I
> prefer to do the work of making contacts myself and want at least some
> personal involvement in the actual QSO.
>
> This wasn't a conscious decision to "boycott" on my part; VHF Contesting
> just wasn't that much fun anymore for me. I did give the January 2022
> Contest a go as an FM Only entrant for the first time, on 2 meters and 70
> cm, on a limited basis. Predictably, my QSO count was quite limited. I did
> enjoy it though to some extent. My next effort was a very short one on the
> Sunday evening of the June 2024 contest. I had finished up with a 2 meter
> net around 8:00 pm and for the heck of it tried calling CQ Contest on
> 146.52 which netted me two QSO's, one with an operator fairly local to me
> and one with a contest participant quite a ways from me (in FM terms) in a
> different grid. Since then I've been participating in each VHF contest as
> an FM Only entrant. For the most part the pace is leisurely to say the
> least but I am enjoying it. I call CQ fairly often on each of the 4 bands I
> now operate and in between monitor while reading a book.
>
> I don't know what the ideal mode scheduling compromise would be. Clearly
> lots of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs. Since amateur
> radio is dependent on showing use of the frequencies available to us to
> justify our frequency allocations, an important variable to consider is
> overall activity levels when trying to arrive at an optimum solution to the
> mode scheduling problem. Another important consideration is attracting new
> operators to VHF contesting. Most newly licensed operators are going to
> have a radio and antenna(s) and that is about it. Getting them into the
> traditional analog modes for contesting seems to be the easiest way to
> attract their attention for the most part. Also, being patient and
> courteous with new contesters is important. I heard some very poor
> operating practices from a few people who should know better in regards to
> setting a good example for new contesters during the last weekend's contest.
>
> 73, Steve W1NIV
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 11:09:43 AM EDT, wa2teo--- via
> VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> I think Ed, K3SK and K1DS are on the right track. Same timeframe,
> digital and analog with perhaps extra points for analog. Or not. I believe
> we all agree that the goal is to increase activity in what has been a
> declining activity. By allowing contacts on digital and analog, it
> encourages the digital guys to work analog stations. My concerns about
> other approaches :- making it a 48 hour contest is going to negatively
> impact rovers. How many can stay out that long? I don't find many out in
> the middle of the night. So we are basically limiting the time they are on
> for all practical purposes. And many rovers I work are only analog. So
> basically they are down to one day of operating, so fewer grids they can
> hit. On a different note, I see on 3830 in most contests I operate more
> hours than most single ops. Yeah, as my xyl says I'm a bit obsessed, hi.
> But even I would not feel enthused about a 48 hour vhf contest. We just
> don't have enough ops these days.
> - We had a great experiment with separate mode events this summer in CQWW.
> In fairness, 6 meters was not good either weekend from what I can tell (I
> had very limited operating in the Analog weekend). I operated the digital
> and it was really slow. And there was no option to go analog to reduce the
> lack of digital stations. And vice versa for the analog weekend. So I don't
> think having separate operating modes accomplishes anything since it
> further thins an already thin herd.
> - I worked about 140 Q's this weekend on 902 and up. All were analog. I
> don't currently have digital on those bands but I am working on that. Even
> so, it would take a lot of time to work what I did on digital and the only
> advantage would be I might add some further out Q's. So, by having separate
> operating times by mode, I think you would end up with very limited results
> on 902 and up. Basically the digital only session becomes primarily a lower
> 4 bands contest. Many of my microwave contacts were with rovers who don't
> currently operate on digital. So back to the top. I think the goals are met
> by allowing an analog Q and a digital on the same band. If need be, weight
> the analog to push activity there. It's a disappointing reality that we
> might need this. I'm old enough to remember when I worked more stuff than I
> do now on Analog only. But that ship has sailed and we should stay focused
> on how to best run all modes in the future to increase activity. We all
> need that to keep it interesting and fun. And given current activity
> levels, I don't think we will be overwhelmed using both. We definitely
> would need help from the contest programs so it doesn't become messy. Right
> now to run the sprints that allow both modes, I go back to the future and
> use a check sheet to remember who I worked on which mode, hi. Lastly,
> boycotting to make a point is , I believe self defeating. Imagine being on
> for your first contest and finding dismal activity because lot's of guys
> don't operate to make a point. It's really hard to find new blood in vhf
> contesting. Turning any new ops off isn't a good way to succeed. If we're
> frank about it, one of the issues since FT8 is that quite a few long term
> ops stopped operating since they didn't like it. Essentially they have been
> boycotting. I believe that is a contributor to lower analog activity. Why
> not just get on and have fun any way you enjoy? It's a VHF truism -
> activity breeds activity. A number of times this weekend I was on 6 or 2M
> ssb and didn't see any other stations on that mode. My .02 cents. Jeff K1TEO
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 03:17:08 PM GMT+1, Ed Kucharski
> via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> Not if there are rules in place to prevent this ("mode hopping").
> Something like: QSO's may only be made on recognized digital/analog
> frequencies/portions of the bands and a digital and analog QSO can not be
> made back-to-back on the same frequency (or similar wording of no
> back-to-back analog/digital QSO's maybe similar to the HF NA sprints...).
>
> I've been a proponent of a change in the contest rules similar to the
> format of the ARRL 10m contest and have submitted a couple of proposals to
> ARRL and heard crickets in return. Analog Only, Digital Only and Mixed
> categories allowing 2 QSO's (one analog and one digital) on each band.
> After reading others ideas, I also think additional encouragement may be
> needed to further promote analog operation - perhaps making analog QSO's
> worth additional points? But is that enough to get the digital operators
> off digital and explore analog?
>
> There were a couple of times last weekend where I went an hour without
> making a QSO (4 bands, KW+ power on 6 and 2m, 100w on 222/432). I called
> CQ on 6 and 2m SSB on the top of many hours and self-spotted making only a
> couple QSO's that way, worked only a few multi-ops and just one (and only
> one) rover on 1 band from 1 grid. Chat rooms got me a only a couple more
> skeds and QSO's. It was beyond boring (thank goodness I could watch
> football on my iPad while operating). Trying to get stations to QSY on FT8
> to other bands was also a challenge and I had a higher failure rate than
> success rate.
>
> 73,
> Ed K3DNE
> EM94
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 09/17/2025 9:27 AM EDT David R Buckwalter via VHFcontesting <
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you allow working a station both Digital and Analog on each band, all
> you will do is create ?Mode Hopping? ?? ?QSL the FN99, switch to FT8 and
> call me right here again, then we can move up a band and do it again?.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ed Parish <k1ep.list@gmail.com mailto:k1ep.list@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 7:30 AM
> > To: Terry Price <terry@directivesystems.com
> > mailto:terry@directivesystems.com>
> > Cc: K3SK@buckwalter.co mailto:K3SK@buckwalter.co; NEWS
> > <NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net>; VHF
> > Contesting <VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] [VHFcontesting] Here's a Proposed Solution for
> > Digital/Analog Operating
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, if you go for a 48 hour contest, 24 analog and 24 digital, how
> about splitting it 12/24/12 to encourage people to work both modes and
> stick around? Instead of having people on for the first 24 and QRT or just
> get on for the second 24?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed Parish, K1EP
> >
> > k1ep@arrl.net mailto:k1ep@arrl.net <mailto:k1ep@arrl.net
> > mailto:k1ep@arrl.net>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 20:38 Terry Price <terry@directivesystems.com
> mailto:terry@directivesystems.com <mailto:terry@directivesystems.com
> mailto:terry@directivesystems.com> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, I said make the contest a full 48 hrs, 24 digital and 24 analog.
> > Comments about too many modes is kinda correct, you don't know where to
> go.
> > You call CQ on SSB/CW and you miss FT8 folks, go to FT8 you miss
> > analog folks. That's why I think having two segments really fits well.
> > Both modes get evening, morning and day. If someone is opposed to
> > digital, they operate whichever segment is analog. This also would
> > reduce the "Sunday afternoon blues" when you'll do anything to work
> someone.
> >
> > So right now, there is SOLP and SOHP and analog only, for the folks
> > that only want to work digital, there is no digital award only that I
> > am aware of. Yes, it may be creating another category but it's not
> > just so "everyone wins" Digital isn't going anywhere and to think the
> > league will remove digital from VHF contests is not realistic. Anyone
> > who has contested for a while knows that FT8 is NOT a contest mode,
> > yes you can dig out folks that are too weak for cw or folks that don't
> > operate cw, but neither is Q65,
> > MSK144 for that matter but folks don't abuse those.
> >
> > I for one see nothing wrong with an analog only, digital only and for
> > us guttens' both modes - and awards, I personally would love a 48 hour
> > VHF contest as long as there is activity to keep me awake. I couldn't
> > make the CQ VHF analog but I did operate the digital and if the
> > results are correct I was #1 in the US. I operated two K3's, one on 6
> > and one driving a transverter for two. The challenge was keeping both
> > going and trying not to miss anything. It wasn't the same fun as
> > analog and recognising someone by their voice or fist but it wasn't that
> bad.
> >
> > I've been contesting since 1978 when I worked with WA8LXJ in Kentucky.
> > I've singleop'ed, multiop'ed, and roved. I loved roving but getting
> > folks to QSY is difficult on FT8 and you miss a lot when folks are
> > hanging out on FT8 all the time so dividing the contest into two
> > sections would also help rovers and hopefully spur more to get on. Is
> > the idea perfect, of course not, what in life is perfect?
> >
> > Terry
> > Terry Price - W8ZN
> > Directive Systems and Engineering
> > 703-754-3876
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 4:43?PM David R Buckwalter via VHFcontesting <
> > vhfcontesting@contesting.com mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Here is my 3-1/2? on using analog and digital modes for the ARRL VHF
> > > contests.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is an easy solution. Just read on ===
> > >
> > > First, it is not just about FT8. Some operators use other digital
> > > modes as well. This past weekend?s contest I logged CW, SSB, FT8,
> > > MSK, Q65 and
> > > JT65 contacts.
> > >
> > > Separating the contest for either analog or digital format is dumb.
> > > There are already too many things going on in life to worry about
> > > dedicating another weekend for contesting. Splitting the same
> > > weekend into slots for analog and digital is a bad idea. Which
> > > format gets the morning tropo time slot? What format gets the
> > > daytime Sporadic E? Does MSK144 for meteor scatter get assigned to
> > > the mornings, evenings, night, or afternoon? What about those like
> > > myself that add multipliers using digital modes to work EME? Do we
> > > get to use digital when the moon is available at our location?
> > >
> > > Over the past 3 to 4 years there has been much discussion on this
> > > subject and the one significant point made is Analog operators (SSB
> > > & CW) will not work digital stations. In most cases the analog
> > > stations don?t even own digital equipment or software. However,
> > > whether they choose to or not, Digital operators have the ability
> > > and many do work ?Mixed Mode?, both digital and analog.
> > >
> > > Considering this, the most logical thing to do is change the rules
> > > for scoring and operating categories. Keep the current operating
> > > categories including ?Analog Only?. Then, add a new ?Digital Only?
> > > category. Create a points incentive for analog contacts. As an
> > > example, use the current point values for digital modes, then add 1
> > > point to those values for each analog contact. A 144MHz now 1 point,
> > > will be 2 points if an analog contact is made, a 222MHz contact is
> > > now 2 points and will be 3 if it is for an analog contact. This
> > > provides an incentive for ?Mixed Mode? stations to seek out and work
> > > analog contacts. Still permit only one valid contact per band with
> > > any station. If a station is previously worked digital and then is
> > > later worked analog, allow the higher point analog contact, letting
> > > the previous logged digital contact to become the ?DUPE?. ?Digital
> > > Only? are competing with other ?Digital Only? even if they work a
> > > ?Mixed Mode? station. It?s the same for ?Analog Only? stations.
> > > There is no downside to this method of scoring.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I know the logging software will need to be revised. But that?s
> > > got nothing to do with making everybody happy and increasing activity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FWIW ? I have been VHF contesting since 1980
> > >
> > > Dave - K3SK - FM07
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > > VHFcontesting@contesting.com mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > <mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > NEWSVHF mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/newsvhf
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net
> > <mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net>
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
------------------------------
End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 273, Issue 31
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|