[VHFcontesting] FW: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 56, Issue 9
w0ld
w0ld at pcisys.net
Thu Aug 9 06:52:07 EDT 2007
----------
From: w0ld <w0ld at pcisys.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:38:15 -0600
To: Greg Chartrand <w7my at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 56, Issue 9
Good morning Greg...
I am the chairman of the VUAC committee. The committee has been active in
addressing the EME contest and several other proposals to the Public Service
and Contesting Committee of the ARRL Board. You will notice a re-write of
the EME contest rules, this was the work of the VUAC committee.
We are currently working on how to increase the rover competition in the
VHF/UHF contests. We have had forums at the Southeast VHF Conference and
four of the committee, including myself, held a forum at the Central States
VHF Conference two weeks ago in San Antonio.
I have been watching your comments here and will pass along new ideas to the
rest of the committee. Or you can pass them directly to your ARRL
Divisional representative on the committee.
Thanks for your interest.
Lauren Libby W0LD
Chairman
> From: Greg Chartrand <w7my at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 56, Issue 9
>
> So what happened to the "special" committee the ARRL asked to look at the
> rules? I bet they didn't like the results so nothing happened. I'm appalled
> with their inaction.
>
> Greg
>
> vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com wrote: Send VHFcontesting mailing list
> submissions to
> vhfcontesting at 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 at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner at 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: One Missing Rover (Eric Smith)
> 2. One Missing Rover (Mike (KA5CVH) Urich)
> 3. Re: One Missing Rover (Mike (KA5CVH) Urich)
> 4. Re: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 56, Issue 7 (Rick R)
> 5. Multi-op rover (Rick R)
> 6. Re: One Missing Rover (John Geiger)
> 7. Re: One Missing Rover (Nate Duehr)
> 8. Re: One Missing Rover (Nate Duehr)
> 9. Dream Rover (was: Re: One Missing Rover) (Nate Duehr)
> From: "Eric Smith" <kb7dqh at donobi.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:01:51 -0700
> To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at lcisp.com>, <Jimk8mr at aol.com>,
> <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
>
> AMEN! I like the "shore power" rule change also, then I
> got to thinking about it for just a second and realized
> that any abuses such as visiting inactive fixed stations in
> different grids and running with your own callsign is
> covered in other rules...
>
> Imagine the entire K8GP operation operating from two or
> three mountaintops during a contest... With just a bit of
> extra effort they could pull it off!
>
> Hmmm... W2SZ/1 ROVER???? They already have the gear set
> up in utilty trucks, so setting the antennas up on tower
> trailers isn't too much of a stretch...
>
> To that end, four ARRL UHF contests ago, I ran my latest
> "portable amateur radio station"
> as a single op rover. Pictures of the vehicle are on the
> ARRL website in the soapbox area. Easiest way to find them
> is to "google" my callsign.
>
> I have even taken two other operators along on two
> different January VHF contests. I did not send in the logs
> as this would have violated current rules, but, this was a
> good way to test the gear "all at once" and found that it
> is indeed possible to run modestly high power on several
> bands at once with antennae in close proximity and not tear
> up the stations not actively transmitting too much. Some
> increase in noise floors with certain equipment
> combinations did occur, subsequently changes in the station
> equipment has minimized this greatly.
>
> My current configuration provides for a driver, 6 meter
> operator, two meter operator, 222/432 Mhz operator,
> 903-10368 operator, and two other "hot-racking" relief
> drivers or radio operators. The 222/432 rigs are separate,
> so that operator could conceivably have his hands full on
> occasion, but I think this evenly distributes the typical
> VHF contest workload evenly among the operators, and could
> keep the stations on the air thru an entire 30 hour contest
> period.
>
> How's that for "adopting operating practices that allow as
> many stations as possible to contact (the rover)"???
> Eric
> KB7DQH
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:46:32 -0000
> "John Geiger" wrote:
>> Also,eliminate the requirement that a rover can have only
>> 1 or 2 operators
>> (which includes the driver). Can't see the logic in that
>> one either.
>>
>> 73s John AA5JG
>>
>
> From: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike at ka5cvh.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:05:30 -0500
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> On 8/8/07, Joshua M. Arritt wrote:
>
>> spite Exxon/Mobile,
>
> Mike wrote
>
> Don't forget Occidental Petroleum Too, sorry I digress.
>
> --
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://ka5cvh.com
> http://harriscountyares.org
>
> From: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike at ka5cvh.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> CC: vhfcontesting at contesting.com, Jimk8mr at aol.com
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:16:52 -0500
> To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at lcisp.com>
>
> On 8/8/07, John Geiger wrote:
>
>> Also,eliminate the requirement that a rover can have only 1 or 2 operators
>> (which includes the driver). Can't see the logic in that one either.
>
> Mike wrote
>
> Agreed, single op, multi op, what is so difficult about that.
>
> Some ideas I'd like to do.
> http://www.ka5cvh.com/radio/vhf/vehicles.pdf
>
>
> --
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://ka5cvh.com
> http://harriscountyares.org
>
> From: "Rick R" <rick1ds at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 56, Issue 7
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:00:44 -0400
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> I thought about this for a while as I have been a VHF rover for 20+ years. I
> do have a dedicated rover van for the past 7 years, although I did a set-up
> in the XYL's station wagon prior to each contest before I got the van. I
> live in an antenna resticted community. before moving to current QTH I lived
> in a seriously disadvantaged VHF QTH
> Sometimes I bite the bullet and spend up to $500 for a weekend--gas, meals,
> 2 nites in motels, tolls...It's sort of like a mini-vacation weekend, with
> the main feature being RADIO!
> Sometimes I fill the tank once, drive to the local 4 corners and operate
> from those 4 grid corners.
> Sometimes I just go about 1 mile from the home QTH and operate from a
> reasonable spot as a fixed station, time spent depends on conditions and
> activity.
> Sometimes I stay home if I don't have much contest time, or the weather
> makes travel impossible (like January) and operate from the very limited
> home station in the house with stealth antennas in the attic, but since
> performance is poor, only work a few of the locals.
> Although I can't twist anyone's arm, there's always the opportunity to take
> a buddy and ask to share some costs, or limit the territory covered and
> enjoy what your budget allows. Or perhaps the local club or VHF'ers can
> help subsidize some of your travel costs. As we often see feedback from so
> many VHF'ers, "Rovers make this so much fun!"
> By all means, participate and make some QSOs with your VHF confreres. 73,
> Rick, K1DS/R
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Booking a flight? Know when to buy with airfare predictions on MSN Travel.
> http://travel.msn.com/Articles/aboutfarecast.aspx&ocid=T001MSN25A07001
>
>
> From: "Rick R" <rick1ds at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Multi-op rover
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:13:58 -0400
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> I have lobbied for many years to have a separate category for 1-op rovers vs
> multi-op rovers.
> The rationale is that 1 person does not have the capability to do what 2
> people can in terms of driving and operating, not to mention the physical
> needs sometimes involved in set-up and breakdown at each stop, if that's the
> kind of rover you have.
> And the two ops can be running QSOs simultaneously on two bands, but one op
> can only operate 1 band at a time.
> I certainly would not mind having a separate category for the multi-op
> rover, just like we have a category for the multi-op fixed station. But
> let's not think that it's a fair match for 1 person alone to compete with
> what 2 or more can! 73, Rick, K1DS/R
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See what you’re getting into
before you go there
> http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
>
>
> From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at lcisp.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:13:26 -0000
> To: "Eric Smith" <kb7dqh at donobi.net>, <Jimk8mr at aol.com>,
> <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
>
> One think that I have been thinking of recently is that we need a mobile
> category for the VHF contests-for people who go mobile but who don't meet
> the rover requirements. With the proliferation of HF/VHF/UHF mobile rigs,
> we may have the guy who is out running errands on saturday and sunday
> afternoon, and who turns on 6 to find the band open so he makes a few
> contest Qs. Or the ham who operates while driving back and forth to
> Grandmother's house for the weekend.
>
> If neither of these travel to another grid square they fall into the black
> hole of entries: They can't enter as a rover because they didn't activate
> more than 1 grid, and they can't enter as a single op because of the 300
> meter rule. Do we really want to tell these potential contesters that we
> don't care about them and that their QSOs don't count for anything?
>
> 73s John AA5JG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Smith"
> To: "John Geiger" ; ;
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
>
>
>> AMEN! I like the "shore power" rule change also, then I
>> got to thinking about it for just a second and realized
>> that any abuses such as visiting inactive fixed stations in
>> different grids and running with your own callsign is
>> covered in other rules...
>>
>> Imagine the entire K8GP operation operating from two or
>> three mountaintops during a contest... With just a bit of
>> extra effort they could pull it off!
>>
>> Hmmm... W2SZ/1 ROVER???? They already have the gear set
>> up in utilty trucks, so setting the antennas up on tower
>> trailers isn't too much of a stretch...
>>
>> To that end, four ARRL UHF contests ago, I ran my latest
>> "portable amateur radio station"
>> as a single op rover. Pictures of the vehicle are on the
>> ARRL website in the soapbox area. Easiest way to find them
>> is to "google" my callsign.
>>
>> I have even taken two other operators along on two
>> different January VHF contests. I did not send in the logs
>> as this would have violated current rules, but, this was a
>> good way to test the gear "all at once" and found that it
>> is indeed possible to run modestly high power on several
>> bands at once with antennae in close proximity and not tear
>> up the stations not actively transmitting too much. Some
>> increase in noise floors with certain equipment
>> combinations did occur, subsequently changes in the station
>> equipment has minimized this greatly.
>>
>> My current configuration provides for a driver, 6 meter
>> operator, two meter operator, 222/432 Mhz operator,
>> 903-10368 operator, and two other "hot-racking" relief
>> drivers or radio operators. The 222/432 rigs are separate,
>> so that operator could conceivably have his hands full on
>> occasion, but I think this evenly distributes the typical
>> VHF contest workload evenly among the operators, and could
>> keep the stations on the air thru an entire 30 hour contest
>> period.
>>
>> How's that for "adopting operating practices that allow as
>> many stations as possible to contact (the rover)"???
>> Eric
>> KB7DQH
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:46:32 -0000
>> "John Geiger" wrote:
>>> Also,eliminate the requirement that a rover can have only
>>> 1 or 2 operators
>>> (which includes the driver). Can't see the logic in that
>>> one either.
>>>
>>> 73s John AA5JG
>>>
>>
>
>
> From: Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:48:54 -0600
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> John Geiger wrote:
>> Also,eliminate the requirement that a rover can have only 1 or 2 operators
>> (which includes the driver). Can't see the logic in that one either.
>
> Multi-op rover from an old school bus and a tower trailer.
>
> I would love that. :-)
>
> Nate WY0X
>
> From: Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] One Missing Rover
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:58:38 -0600
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> John Geiger wrote:
>> One think that I have been thinking of recently is that we need a mobile
>> category for the VHF contests-for people who go mobile but who don't meet
>> the rover requirements. With the proliferation of HF/VHF/UHF mobile rigs,
>> we may have the guy who is out running errands on saturday and sunday
>> afternoon, and who turns on 6 to find the band open so he makes a few
>> contest Qs. Or the ham who operates while driving back and forth to
>> Grandmother's house for the weekend.
>>
>> If neither of these travel to another grid square they fall into the black
>> hole of entries: They can't enter as a rover because they didn't activate
>> more than 1 grid, and they can't enter as a single op because of the 300
>> meter rule. Do we really want to tell these potential contesters that we
>> don't care about them and that their QSOs don't count for anything?
>
> It's a non-problem.
>
> Even if they send in a log, they have no chance at scoring high enough
> to even show up on the lists in the magazine, with that short/small of
> an operation, and they probably know that.
>
> If there's are examples of logs sent in from such operators, what was
> done with them? Were they simply treated as checklogs or were they
> scored? I'm betting they're scored anyway. Is there a check in the
> robot to see if a rover really operated from two grids?
>
> Other than folks who "usually contest" but aren't that day, who send
> them in as check logs, I'd be surprised if anyone in the examples you
> gave above are even truly sending in logs.
>
> Nate WY0X
>
> From: Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Dream Rover (was: Re: One Missing Rover)
> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:03:03 -0600
> To: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike at ka5cvh.com>,
> vhfcontesting at contesting.com
>
> Mike (KA5CVH) Urich wrote:
>
>> Some ideas I'd like to do.
>> http://www.ka5cvh.com/radio/vhf/vehicles.pdf
>
> A radio/TV truck with hydraulic mast and/or a cellular-on-wheels (COW)
> truck would already have a built in "tower"... you could put one of
> those on your vehicle wish list.
>
> Nate WY0X
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Greg Chartrand - W7MY
> Richland, WA.
> DN-06IF
>
> W7MY Home Page:
> http://webpages.charter.net/w7my/
>
> ---------------------------------
> Got a little couch potato?
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list