[50mhz] The Real Reason the "NO .52" rule exists & something toponder...

[John G.]

I would love to see .52 be used again for VHF contesting!  Name one other 
contest that has a specific frequency banned for contest operation.

Also, if it is the national simplex frequency, let's promote simplex on it. 
I doubt in most areas you would make more than 5 or 6 QSOs on it during the 
contest anyways. I think very few people monitor .52 anymore, but lets 
encourage them to monitor it more, starting with the contesters.

73 John AF5CC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Marek" <K7XC at charter.net>
To: "John V" <vjohnv at cox.net>
Cc: <nccc at contesting.com>; "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu>; 
"50mhz" <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>; <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>; 
<PNWVHFS at googlegroups.com>; <wswss at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 4:36 PM
Subject: [50mhz] The Real Reason the "NO .52" rule exists & something 
toponder...


> Not many know the reason for the "NO .52 Rule" in VHF Contesting...
>
> A very "Infamous" West Coast VHF Contester told me the reason
> long ago and whle I'll leave him and him crew anonymous, the story
> is simply to delicious not to pass on...
>
> Back in the day of when all things electronic used "Glow FETs" (Tubes)
> he and his gang operated the June VHF Contest from atop a very tall
> and equally "Infamous" Mountain in the Bay Area of Northern CA.
>
> They had in their posession a 1KW Motorola FM transciever crystaled
> up on... you guessed it... 146.52 as it was legal then.
>
> They were so loud and heard so well they made hundreds of Qs all up
> and down CA and the surounding states and ended up never fired up
> the SSB gear.
>
> Having known the man a long time & after seeing his pics from
> those days of lore...  I believe him.
>
> Is what they did wrong? I dont think so... They saw a advantage that
> at the time was within the rules of the competition and exploited it for
> all it was worth. That is what winners do... look for a edge and use it.
>
> However... The outcry from many who were not on top of that hill was
> huge and later that year the ARRL created the"NO .52" rule in response.
> Move the clock forward 50 years and we are now rethinking letting
> .52 be legal again beacuse of a new "FM ONLY" category?
>
> If we are going to revisit this, why not right the injustice of what was
> done to the ROVER category 20 years ago and revert back to the
> original ROVER rules as well !?!?!?!?!
>
> AHHHH... that got you thinking didn;'t it! I can hear the screams
> now... Why doesnt he let that go? That is not the same!, etc etc....
>
> I submit to you the following.... The current rules are what they
> are based on all that has transpired before. As they are now,
> while not perfect... THEY WORK!
>
> What is the old adage? "IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT!!
>
> Leave the "NO.52" rule alone!!!!
>
> Solve the issue with education as to what frequencies should be
> used... Start a PR campain NOW to spread the word thru the
> clubs encouraging people to use their FM rigs WITHIN THE
> EXISTING RULES!
>
> Print up and supply handouts to Amateur Radio Stores/Clubs
> with the sale of each new FM rtadio explaining about the huge
> VHF Activity weekends in Jan, June, July, Aug, And Sep...
>
> LEAVE THE DAMN RULES ALONE! ENUF ALEADY!
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 50mhz mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html