[VHFcontesting] Trends in VHF/UHF Weak Signal Operating

[John Geiger]

One common thread that kept running through that article on eham as well was 
how easy it would be for manufactures to add 222 to these HF/VHF/UHF radio, 
showing pretty much a lack of understanding to rig design.  They seem to 
think that adding 222 would pretty much be removing a diode like you would 
do for the MARS mod.  The idea that the manufactures have done marketing 
research to determine that adding 222mhz isn't cost effective completely 
escaped them.

Probably 80% of the hams with a HF/VHF/UHF rig have probably never used it 
on 2m SSB or 70cm SSB.  Why in the world would they use it on 222mhz if they 
won't even use it on those other bands?

73 John AF5CC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zack Widup" <w9sz.zack at gmail.com>
To: "VHF Contesting Reflector" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Trends in VHF/UHF Weak Signal Operating


> Maybe most of the hams that are active just want radios they can take
> out of a box, plug in and use. I don't think that's true for
> contesters - it requires a lot of work to build even a small contest
> station.
>
> I've always been a builder. My VHF+ station consists entirely of
> transverters. I built all of them. I also built all the antennas I'm
> using. But even if you bought a transverter from Down East Microwave
> or somewhere, maybe it is just too much for the typical ham to figure
> out how to interface it. I'd like to think that's not true.
>
> I built the 222 MHz transverter designed by Zack Lau W1VT. I believe
> it appeared in QEX magazine in 1993. You can find templates for the pc
> boards at the ARRL site. I made my own boards. This transverter is a
> great performer.
>
> W1GHZ also sells boards for a small 222 MHz transverter designed to
> work with the FT-817. It should work with any transceiver if you
> connect it properly.
>
> Again, maybe that's just too much work for most people.
> :-(
>
> In contests in this area, all the VHF contesters who have more than
> one band seem to have 222. I usually work almost as many people on 222
> as I do on 432 in contests.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
>
> On 2/15/14, Duane - N9DG <n9dg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 2/12/14, Peter Laws <plaws at plaws.net> wrote:
>>
>> "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!  I, for one, am not interested 
>> in
>> being belted *or* flayed.  But yes, that would surely be helpful if for 
>> no
>> other reason than to make sure there is more than one point of view
>> represented."
>>
>> Based on my experiences of trying to do just that for more than 10 years 
>> now
>> on places like eHam is that you will find more than likely to be simply
>> "unheard" than be criticized for posting information about what we do on 
>> the
>> "ultra highs". But yes, please do chime in, it gets pretty lonely out 
>> there
>> trying to offer information to the masses about what we do on these 
>> bands.
>>
>> There was a recent eHam.net article ("222 MHz the missing Band - Still
>> Missing") posted by W4KYR asking why after 10 years after someone had 
>> posted
>> that same question in a previous article that there are still no all 
>> band,
>> all mode, radios with 222 in them from I, K, Y, or even anyone else. The
>> responses were interesting. Several of us pointed out that there are a
>> couple readily available off the shelf transverter options to get going 
>> on
>> 222 SSB/CW. And I further pointed out that for fixed station uses where
>> portability isn't important transverters are a better way to go anyhow. 
>> That
>> was basically the exact same comment I made 10 years previously to the
>> article cited by this most recent one.
>>
>> Then there were numerous comments that conflated FM only gear 
>> availability
>> with the topic of the article that was specifically about SSB/CW 
>> capability.
>> But then also many of the posters to that article were so completely 
>> fixated
>> on the notion that only legitimate way to get on on a band is to buy it 
>> in a
>> box from I, K, or Y they simply couldn't (refused to??) comprehend that
>> there are others ways to get onto 222. There's this really peculiar
>> perception out there that if it isn't available from I, K, or Y, then it
>> doesn't exist. And that it won't exist until it can be bought from I, K, 
>> or
>> Y.. This widely held belief out there in amateur radio land has baffled 
>> me
>> almost more than the reality of there being 10's of thousands of radios 
>> with
>> 6m, 2m, and 70cm in them already out there in people's hands that never 
>> get
>> used on those bands and modes.
>>
>> So I will continue assert that it is not equipment availability, or
>> availability of information about what we do that is the limiting factor 
>> for
>> why people don't get on these bands and modes we do, it is something 
>> else.
>>
>> Duane
>> N9DG
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting