[CQ-Contest] Split on 160 SSB?

[Bill Tippett]

Hi Dave (and please forward to the CQ 160 Contest Committee):

K4JRB wrote:
"The proposal for DX stations using 1843 to 1850 and listening up (above
1850) will lead to the same problems that we now have on 40 and 75 SSB.

        Dave, first the bandplan is for DX stations BELOW 1843 and listening
up.  Imagine for a moment what the situation would be like on
40 and 75 if NA were allowed in the same area as DX.  You would have a
few of the BIG stations (multi-multis, multi-singles and big SOAB stations
using stacked Yagi's, 4-squares, etc calling CQ in the same area as the
DX.  This is the same situation we presently have with the area below
3800...a few BIG stations will monopolize the frequency on either side of
the Atlantic and everyone else is shut out.  In fact, the truly successful
stations on 75 (M-M's, etc) long ago learned to transmit above 3800 and 
listen below 3750.  Wonder why that is?  It's because that is the ONLY way 
to hear the weaker stations!  And BTW it's the same technique DX stations
have learned to use rather than trying to make themselves heard in the 
din of the 3750-3800 area.

        As W8JI points out, the current situation on 160 is that you have
a few BIG East Coast stations CQ-ing and listening with Beverages with 
excellent F/B to the rear.  They can hear EU calling but heaven help someone 
in the Midwest trying to hear much through their transmitted signals.  The
1830-35 window is fairly useless when you have S9+40 signals on either 
side and BTW...imagine what it must sound like in EU with everyone trying
to occupy the same window!  For those who like DX windows, think of 1843 and
below being a LARGE DX WINDOW with the DX listening split for the weaker 
signals they otherwise would never hear on their own frequency.  I still 
recall hearing 5X4F in the CQ 160 SSB a few years ago CQ-ing at his sunrise 
on 1825 with an S8 signal...and NOBODY could hear him (except a few of us
on the East Coast with excellent RX antennas).

        Several have also mentioned problems with antenna bandwidth if we
limited NA SSB to above 1843.  How much trouble is it to raise the resonance
of most antennas?  Not much!  It means shorting out about 3 feet of wire in a 
vertical/inverted-L/sloper or from each side of an inverted vee/dipole to 
move resonance from 1830 to 1875.  In fact, with a limit at 1843, the TX 
antenna actually has to cover LESS bandwidth (~157 kHz instead of 200 kHz) if
you wanted to cover it all (which is really not necessary)!  Haven't we 
learned how to do that on 75/80 meters?

"The better approach is to make 160 a world wide band.  This is the info I
passed onto Tod K0TO (a committee member).   Then we can have a bandplan
that keeps SSB and CW separate.  Until then it will never work!"

        A wonderful idea but not very practical...we can't even get everyone
in the US to agree on anything...much less the rest of the world!  We did 
see your input but I'm afraid I would never live long enough to see the kind
of agreement that would take to push through all 3 ITU Regions.

        Just to clarify my feelings for all...I have NO problem with the
CQ 160 SSB or any SSB contest on 160 IF they would just follow established
bandplans (old OR new).  Heck, W8JI and I might just enter the CQ 160 SSB
and raise the average score if the bandplan were followed!  :-)

                                                73,  Bill  W4ZV


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com