[VHFcontesting] Are EME/MS digital QSOes reducing roverscontributions?

[Dave Olean]

Hi James,
        Your comments about rovers and big stations running EME or meteor 
skeds is one that I have been wrestling with for quite awhile. You are right 
that there is a downside to these digital sked attempts. I know that many 
stations would argue that EME digital QSOs make for a good score from 
certain parts of the country, but I can't help but think that EME QSOs at 
least can be detrimental to the common good for the reasons you mention. 
Those sked stations are effectively off the air for any terrestrial station 
to work for the duration. This affects both rovers and other home stations. 
At least with a meteor sked, the big home station is aimed at the horizon 
and could be heard by another rover or home station far away and could be 
called to attract their attention (assuming you can identify them)  An EME 
signal goes up up and away with little chance of being heard by anyone at a 
distance. I know the Europeans do not allow EME in terrestrial contests, but 
maybe that has to do with distance scoring in some cases.  I would want to 
have MS contacts count, but would rather that EME operation was not allowed. 
The problem with that choice is that many who use EME now  would complain 
for good reason. Some areas of the country are so devoid of VHF signals that 
EME provides a reasonable way to enjoy yourself on a contest weekend. None 
of these situations have simple solutions!
    I saw the W7QQ/r score and was impressed at the bands deployed! Great 
job!

Dave K1WHS
We ran no MS or EME skeds this time out. We went to bed early after having 
cookies and milk at midnight! (We are all getting older too)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey at comcast.net>
To: "VHF Contesting Reflector" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Cc: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey at comcast.net>; "Bill Schwantes" 
<bill4070 at gmail.com>; "PETER SCOLA" <pscolawa7jtm at msn.com>; "WB2KFO WB2KFO" 
<mike at sportscliche.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:09 AM
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Are EME/MS digital QSOes reducing 
roverscontributions?


The digital modes for EME and MS have become important tools for fixed 
stations to increase their grid multiplier totals in contests. There are few 
other ways to increase one’s 2M grid total in all of the contests, and to 
increase one’s 6M grid total in other than June or July contests.  These 
digital scatter QSOes, productive as they are, can take a half hour or more. 
That is time when the fixed station can do nothing else on that band, and 
for many stations, on any other band.

During the September contest last weekend, operating as part of W7QQ/r, 
three different stations missed us in one or more grids due to being 
involved in WSJT MS or EME QSOes and not being able to take the time out to 
work us while we were stopped in the grid. By my count one station lost four 
mults by not working us while involved in an EME/MS QSO to get one multi, 
one three, and one at least two. The QSOes we lost amounted to about 5% of 
our score. With digital MS QSOes taking half hour or more, and the typical 
rover stop an hour or less, it is quite likely that the fixed station 
running a MS sked will miss the rover. With rovers being the mother’s milk 
of VHF contesting, this is probably bad in the long run for VHF contesting.

I am concerned that there is a real danger that the drive by fixed stations 
to get new grids on a single band with MS or EME digital modes is diluting 
rover efforts. With rovers being a significant driving force in VHF/UHF 
contesting, I think that this is a bad trend. If we rove to a rare grid, and 
ops don’t work us because they are on WSJT modes, that will reduce our 
overall QSOes, and hence reduce our incentive to go out roving, Simply put, 
there are fewer stations for a rover to work with the fixed stations 
concentrating on MS or EME contacts. With fewer stations to work, the 
incentive to rove is decreased.

I wonder if there is a way to deal with this potential conflict that is 
mutually beneficial to both the rover and the fixed station?  Perhaps a 
protocol that would allow the fixed stations to work rovers during their 30 
seconds off?  A mechanism to notify the rover that they may have to wait 30 
seconds to get a reply to an exchange would help. A closer attention to the 
rover’s route as put up by APRS or the clusters by the fixed stations would 
help as well. Perhaps a combined rover/ping jockey site? Fixed stations 
being able to work more than a single band at once?

I fear that if this trend continues, the WSJT activity by fixed stations 
will drive out rover activity to the detriment of both fixed stations and 
rovers.

I don’t mean to criticize those who use the digital modes to obtain more 
grid mults. I understand that motivation. More mults are better. I just want 
people to think about the consequences to rovers of this activity and see if 
there is some way that the two activities can coexist without significant 
detriment to either. I am concerned if this trend gets too far down the road 
it cannot be changed and rover activity will suffer. That will hurt us 
ll.  - Duffey KK6MC, sometimes KK6MC/r, sometimes part of W7QQ/r
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM





_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting