TopBand: Re: lowband expeditions

[Jim Henderson]

        Ahhh, the thread thickens:

>From: "Chris R. Burger" <CRB@knersus.nanoteq.co.za>
>
>Hmmmm.  I have to add a few comments, as an erstwhile DXpeditioner 
>of some notoriety.  I think we are forgetting a few things:
>
>*  It is very difficult to get masses of people to stand by for a 
>   marginal opening to another area, if they haven't had a fair crack
>   at you.  I would think it makes sense to work the close-in masses 
>   for a day or two until that demand has been met to some extent, and
>   then tell them to shut up for the long-haul stuff.
>   
>*  Low band operating wasn't so great in the past.  How many 
>   DXpeditions from the Seventies and Eighties produced the kind of 
>   160 fireworks that S21XX, V5/W8UVZ, V5/ZS6YG, VK0IR etc did?
>

        Well Chris, neither of these points addresses the thread of knowing
propagation, which I think is an extremely valid DXpedition requirement for
any band, and especially the low ones. Tom's comments are still valid, IMHO.

        As an experienced African DXer, you know how hard it is to make a
call on how to run the piles, where technique depends on the band and the
path.  For example, on the higher bands, it is often had to work The
Deserving in the Carribbean  and the Pacific thru the USA/CA/SA unless you
pay attention to the prop and periodically make directional calls. And
working another African thru a good USA/EU  pile can be one of the hardest
things, hihi.

        But I think Tom's point, and mine too, is more like the case with
6-8 hours of mutual darkness with JA, and a short period of USA peak on low
bands, and making the most hay while the sun doesnt shine, so to speak. And
the value of picking the right times for those bands. ie, greyline for 160,
not the middle of the night.

>Try to remember:  Low banders are a very small proportion of the DX 
>world.  Someone who runs an expedition to satisfy general demand, 
>cannot spend time trying to pacify a small minority at the expense of 
>the rest of the world. 
  
      As for the popularity of these low bands, I do not agree they are
such a small part of contemporary DXing. In fact, I think the demands and
expectations from the DXer community for quality low band operations has
increased greatly, that is why expeditions now spend lots of time trying to
cater to this. Good understanding of propagation is your ally at making a
better success. Dont forget, in the 70's and 80's there were still great
restrictions on 160m in the USA, the 5BDXCC was catching on, there were no
WARC bands, and DXers didnt clammor for RTTY either.  I was  DXpeditioning
in those days; and as an "erstwhile DXpeditioner of some notoriety", I
operated from several Pacific locations where the clamor for 80/160 was
high even then. And I am pretty sure I was the first 160m operation from
some, too. Now everybody wants QSOs on all the bands and more modes. Even
satellite, 6m, and EME.
Now everybody wants QSOs on all the bands and more modes.

        DXers want more, the trips cost more, and time is at a greater
premium. Expeditions whos' operators understand propagation well are in a
better position to serve the needs and wants of the DX community than those
who do not. That is precicely why, IMHO, the success of those 3 expeditions
you mentioned is legendary now, and why some others are not.

        And I still think another low band DXpedition would be greatly
welcomed.

73 de Jim
KF7E et al 


 -
 ---
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-topband@contesting.com