[ILQSO] 20 meters- a further analysis

[James Funk]

I think all of the mobiles and portables have 20 meters available.  The
rate is just better (usually) on 40 and that's where we start. 

This year, I'm not too sure that 40 was as good as 20 at the start; we
just weren't there. Signals on 20 were good.   The ones who really lost
ground were those who didn't have 80 meters.  I think we could have
worked 80 to our advantage right from the start.

-----Original Message-----
From: ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of John Geiger
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:01 AM
To: Illinois QSO Party
Subject: Re: [ILQSO] 20 meters- a further analysis

It is interesting how things have changed.  In
2002-2005 I had 80 or more IL QSOs before even making
a 40m QSO.  The Ill stations were all over the place
on 20.  For whatever reason, most activity has left 20
in favor of 40m the past 2 years.

73s John AA5JG

--- Hank Greeb <n8xx at arrl.org> wrote:

> John:
> 
> I've only operated in ILQP twice, last year and this
> year.  Last year I 
> only worked one station on 20 (in 30 minutes) before
> going to 40, but 
> later I tried 20 at about 1740Z and worked 8 in 20
> minutes before giving 
> up and going back to 40.  A rate of 8 Q's in 20
> minutes doesn't hack it 
> for the contester in me.  Last year I found a
> "local" in the next county 
> on 20, which didn't happen this year.
> 
> This year  I worked 6 Q's initially, 3 DX and 3 US
> (No Illinois), and 
> later I worked 4 more.  The closest stations were in
> Virginia or Quebec.
> 
> Previous experience was the Ohio QSO party, and I
> remember some of the 
> years when there were some Ohio contacts - very
> short skip!
> 
> 73 de n8xx Hg
> 
> John Geiger wrote:
> > To further analyze the change in activity levels
> on 20 meters, I went back thru the electronic logs I
> had, which only were from 2002-2007.  I must have
> logged by paper in 2001 when operating from OK.  I
> know I was using paper logging before that, and 1999
> and 2000 were mobile in Illinois with no 20 meter
> QSOs because I didn't have a 20 meter hamstick!  
> >
> > Anyways, I wanted to see how many 20 meter QSOs I
> made in the ILQP each year, and when I first went to
> 40 meters.  Each year I was using the same antenna,
> and using 100 watts each time.  My data shows that
> this is becoming more of a low bands contest each
> year:
> >
> > Year   20m QSOs    First 40m QSO
> > 2002     154         2226Z
> > 2003     120         2124Z
> > 2004     120         2020Z
> > 2005      89         1821Z
> > 2006      24         1757Z
> > 2007       4!        1742Z
> >
> > So each year I made fewer 20m QSOs and was on 40
> earlier each year.  I remember in the 2001-2004 I
> couldn't even hear stations on 40m the first couple
> of = hours of the contest, and they were very weak
> when I did hear them.  
> >
> > This year I did make more 80m QSOs than usual in
> the contest, and signals were great up there.  I
> hope this trend reverses itself when the sunspots
> reappear, as it was nice to work stations on 20m,
> then again later on 40 and 80, getting 3 QSOs with
> each fixed or portable station.  This year it was
> pretty much just a 40m and 80m QSO with each one.
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> _______________________________________________
> ILQSO mailing list
> ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
> ILQP webpage:
> http://www.w9awe.org/ILQP.html
> list administrator is Danny NG9R
> for list problems contact ng9r at arrl.net
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
ILQSO mailing list
ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
ILQP webpage:
http://www.w9awe.org/ILQP.html
list administrator is Danny NG9R
for list problems contact ng9r at arrl.net