[VHFcontesting] CU2QSO and Low Signal Level QSO's [was:REMINDER: ... CU2QSO Pioneers]

[Zack Widup]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:

> Zack Widup wrote:
> > 
> > I have nothing against the CU2QSO approach.  The only thing about it is
> > that it uses FM packet (that's true, correct?).  FM packet is inherently
> > less sensitive than weak-signal modes.  So if I hear and manage to work a
> > guy that's S0 on CW (just above the ESP level, let's say), then there's no
> > way I'd have been able to work him on CU2QSO.
> 
> Hi Zack,
> Excellent intuition!  (I mean that sincerely)  In fact, CU2QSO is not the be-all
> and end-all that some folks are making it.  However...it's still quite
> powerful.  Let me explain.
> 
> The short explanation:
> CU2QSO isn't intended to provide you with S-0 QSO's.  It is intended to provide
> you QSO's with stations that you may have otherwise not noticed, even though
> they are plainly "in range" by all other accounts.  This system does not replace
> the digging for weak signals that you do as a regular part of contesting.  It is
> just another resource...it's not the "only" resource. :)
> 
> The long explanation:
> Rovers go to hilltops.  That's where they can be heard by the most number of
> people...including the great unwashed masses of us that don't live on hilltops. 
> That alone will increase their effective range as compared to two
> valley-dwellers trying to make a simplex packet QSO.
> 

Maybe I will give it a try.  I haven't tried Rover category yet, but I'm
usually QRP-portable from a hilltop.  In the last few contests I've been
in, the Rovers were all far away from me at the times I was active.  But
it might be a good way not to miss them if they do happen to get close to
me.

I probably need a bigger vehicle too - as I've mentioned before, it gets
hard fitting 10 bands into a Toyota!  :)

73, Zack W9SZ