[NLRS] K0MHC - VHF QSO Party results - "Patience"

[jcplatt1 at mmm.com]

DISAPPOINTMENTS included working only 3 Qs on 2304 and NONE on 3456! There
seemed to be an invisible wall on these two bands whereas 10 and 5.7 GHz
seemed to do much better under the same conditions and paths.


Hi Jim, thanks for the contest write-up.  It was a challenging one indeed !
Your comments about 2304 and 3456 are interesting .... based on several
years of roving with 6m through 10GHZ, there is no doubt that the "ease" of
making contacts, especially at distance, really decrease in that
1296/2304/3456 frequency range only to come back quickly at 5760 and 10
GHz.  Its not unusual to see better signals on 10 GHz than on 2m .... no
joke.

As both a rover and fixed station operator, here are my comments on the
bands. Wonder how other rovers see this as well:

6m:  Its a HF band.  Excluding E contacts, ground wave & tropo are limited.
Problem is the antenna is "big" and that low horizontal antennas = high
take off angles = poor results for a rover.  I think more rovers have found
going to a light antenna up "high" works better than a small gain antenna
down low.  6m is not a good rover band unless 200 stations live within 50
miles of where you rove !

2m:  It has 1/3 the problems of 6m.   Height above ground is still
important.  As a rover you can start to use small gain antennas. EVERYONE
is on 2m so unfortunately, as a rover, its important to get as good a
signal on 2m as you can.

222:  Power-for-power, antenna for antenna, maybe the best rover band ?
Good signals, usually better than 2m assuming equivalent set-ups.  222
rocks.   To bad we don't use it like we use 2m.

432:  Another great band for rovers.  Its not uncommon for 432 to also have
excellent signals.  If I had to pick the order of bands for good rover
signals its 222, then 432, then 2m.  Antennas are 1/3 the size of 2m
antennas so you can usually use one with fair gain and patterns are not too
sharp.

902:  Works great and much like 432.  Problem is that often stations are
running less power than on 432 .... 100 watts on 432 and say 10 watts on
902 ... and that is why signals are down.  If you run the same power you
finded signals are (nearly) just as good as 432, which at times can be very
good.  A good rover band and lots of stations now have it.

1296:  Things start to get tougher.  50 watts is "higher" rover power with
many stations running 10 to 20 watts.   Beams are sharper.  At range its
not uncommon to hit the wall at 1296 after having good signals on 2m
through 902.

2304:  Yuck.  I run 40 watts and its the toughest band. When there is
enhancement tho its a hoot ! Tough band.  Frequency accurary starts to
become a problem ... weak signals and unknown frequency = no Q.  Perhaps
the new LO board from DEMI will help here.  CW is in common use due to weak
signals.

3456:  See 2304 above and minus 3 dB.  If they are very weak on 2304,
station for station its no Q on 3456.

5760:  I am running two watts and a 27 dB dish, and I work lots of stuff.
Signals are often about 2/3 as strong as on 10 GHz.  Many contacts are easy
easy CW, some are SSB.  MUCH better than 2304/3456.  Perhaps its the 27 dB
versus 20 dB or so on the lower bands ?

10G:  Running six watts and 32 dB dish, I work lots of stuff.  Signals are
usually SSB quality, sometimes weak SSB, and sometimes CW, and usually as
strong or stronger than 2m signals.   Fun and amazing band.


So, if I just consider signal strength as the driving force for making
contacts, as a rover I would order the bands from easiest to hardest as

222, 432, 10G, 2m, 902, 5760, 1296, 6m, 2304, 3456.

73, Jon
W0ZQ