[NLRS] What's the problem with UHF (& microwave) contesting?

[Dr. Gerald N. Johnson]

On 3/11/2016 5:57 PM, Paul Husby wrote:
>
>
> Back in the 80's when I was getting my multi-op station going, things
> were really taking off all over. We had saved a slot at 222 (just had to
> re-crystal from 220), a new band came in at 902, KK7B developed the
> 'no-tune' transverters, and W3HQT made them available to all by starting
> up DEMI. Things were looking great!

I worked my first 8 states from Gilbert Iowa on 432 one night in 1970, a 
foggy night under a stalled high pressure dome. Running a screen keyed 
RCA tube FM rig retuned to 432.0. My keying relay couldn't handle the 
voltage so I ended up keying with a couple clip leads. I had a single 11 
element CC yagi up about 30 feet without a rotor so had to go out and 
get my shoes wet rotating it. I didn't work Iowa that night.

As time went on I improved the rig getting SSB on multiple bands, and 
150 watts out on 432 with a pair of K2RIW yagis at about 75 feet with a 
good feed line.

For several years I didn't have much of a 2m antenna so I parked on 6 
and 432 for VHF contests and I called lots of CQs on 432 and worked many 
signals to the point of getting ARRL certificates for one band during 
the VHF contests.

As the multiband stations have evolved operating techniques for VHF 
contests have changed from set on a band and work everybody who comes by 
to requiring working them on 2m because their bandswitching is too fast 
to notice tail enders. So for a VHF contest its necessary to have a very 
good 2m station to have a chance of working other bands (when 6 isn't 
open for sporadic E). Work 'em on 2m and run the bands. Fills the logs 
with blocks of the same call, the only difference being the band and 
maybe mode.

I have had gear on 1296 and 222, though after years of 1296 the receiver 
went deaf and I switch the antenna to 222 believing there was a problem 
in a relay. Turned out a few years ago I found the oscillator buffer 
stage transistor in my homebrew 1152 LO box had shorted reducing the LO 
drive to mixer seriously so it had lots of mixer loss and I could only 
hear signals I generated locally. If I get a new tower up (moved in 
2010) I might put 902 and 1296 antennas up with other bands. But at 74, 
my progress is a lot slower than it was 40 years ago.
>
> Then we were given the "Limited Multioperator" category, and you could
> field a competitive station with just 4 bands. At first, that at least
> meant you needed 1296, but nowadays you wouldn't think of substituting
> 1296 for 222. So, forget the hassle and expense of anything for 902&up.
> Multiops can really drive activity in a region, and I know it hurts that
> we don't have one around here these days. Always finding at least one
> signal calling on a band makes a big difference. Multiops take the lead,
> and if they aren't on the higher bands, why should the little guy?
>
> Then we got the "Limited Rover", and ditto to most of the above. Top it
> off with the "3-Band Station", so you aren't even encouraged to get on
> the fabulous 222 band. A station with 432 and not 222 is almost
> ridiculous to fire up for the UHF Contest, since practically nobody
> calls CQ on 432 anymore. And if you built up your multiop with nothing
> above 432, then the UHF Contest isn't going to be a big thrill for you
> either. So we have encouraged a collection of single-ops, multi-ops and
> rovers that are discouraged from operating a UHF Contest.

When I had 222 up, I didn't find very much activity, not nearly as much 
as on 432 or 2m and being I was about 20 miles from a channel 13 
transmitter I had to use a couple cavity filter to keep the TV hash from 
being S9 when I looked in that direction. I recall extended Qsos with 
one rover from Schleswig Ia, but I've not heard him on any band in quite 
a few years. Yes I could work a few twin cities stations, maybe one in 
Des Moines and of course K2DRH.
>
> The constant theory has been that these new categories increase activity
> by encouraging stations with limited resources. It was never clear to me
> that we were ever discouraging those stations! I don't think many people
> seriously get on for the contests to collect the wallpaper or to see
> their call higher up on a list. Heck, since the complete results dropped
> out of QST, how many people ever actually look to see where they ended
> up? I think most people get on just to have fun making contacts on these
> rare occasions when activity is guaranteed.

I think the practice of working first on 2m then running the bands 
without giving time for tail enders on the other bands really kills 
enthusiasms for those bands. There's almost no chance of making VHF 
contest contests without the 2m contacts. There will be stations heard, 
but their bandswitch is so fast that unless one can QRM the contacts 
being made they won't be worked. And intentional QRM isn't appreciated 
or exactly with the FCC rules.
>
> If the changes we make don't result in more contacts on all bands, and
> if they don't promote growing your station, then we are not headed in
> the right direction. The demise of what was a very fun UHF Contest is
> the most clear proof of that. The lagging activity in the September VHF
> Contest is further evidence. Only the June contest is in good health,
> and that thanks to the huge influx of HF contesters who found their new
> radios all reach 6 meters.

Ii think we need to promote the presence of single band stations other 
than 2m and looking for CQs.
>
> One change that seems to be helping is the opening up of spotting and
> internet chat forums. That is especially valuable on 222 & above, where
> sharp antennas make it so difficult to find contacts randomly. Yet we
> were barely given a chance to try it out, let alone develop it, in the
> UHF Contest.

That might help, but the modern antennas I believe are part of the 
problem. In the days before being optimized for G/T particularly for 
EME, the side and back lobes were only down 20 or 25 dB from the front 
lobe. Now they are more like 30 dB down and so the big contest stations 
don't hear off the sides or backs well. Look at how hard it is to hear 
N4PZ on his Monday night net on 432. That EME array is sharper than his 
terrestrial rotor resolution and if he gets the direction correct its 
easy. If he's off 5 degrees he can't hear (of course putting out a KW or 
more while listening for 20 watt stations makes it often a one way 
contact).  The multi op multi band contest station probably would make 
more contacts with a horizontally polarized stack of antennas with at 
least 10 or 12 dBi gain but in all directions. I don't think the sharp 
elevation pattern would be nearly as limiting as his EME array. Probably 
something like several big wheels stacked. I worked a couple Kansas City 
stations with the same signal strengths one time, one running a decent 
yagi and the other 3 or 4 stacked big wheels. Even if the stacked wheels 
aren't enough gain to make a contact, its at least going to give a hint 
that there are signals to hunt for with the main array. Then it never 
hurts if there are listeners on a band like there should be on 432 
during the UHF contest to call CQ while aimed at activity centers and to 
start at North and call CQ every 10 degrees or 1/2 beamwidth.

I have alleged that a pair of FO-9 stacked make a better station than a 
FO-22 with about the same gain but twice the beamwidth (and not 
optimized for G/T). I had a M2 5WL on 2m. When I could get it peaked on 
a signal I worked great DX but its 3 dB beamwidth was less than the 
brake steps on my rotor and the boom to mast clamp wasn't that stiff 
either. In my paper (presented at Aurora 2011) on how close can they be 
stacked I compared the pair of FO-9 to the 5WL. That latest version of 
that paper (also in CSVHF proceedings in 2011) is on line at:
http://www.geraldj.networkiowa.com/papers/CSVHF2011/HowCloseB.pdf
>
> Gregg is right, we also need a simpler and less expensive means to reach
> these bands. The technology is out there, but that is another subject.

Thingis we don't make contacts without making noise and without hearing 
if the antenna is too clean. It shouldn't be necessary to for there to 
be a prime band for starting a band run (like 2m for VHF contests) on 
UHF, we should ALL be calling CQ on ALL our bands and listening for 
others doing the same. Those running the bands should work all stations 
in their hearing range on EACH band before moving frequency. Yes that 
means more rotor work, but I think considerably more contacts and 
encouragement of single band stations that are new to the contest.

I have won the Midwest Division ordinary Rover UHF certificate the last 
two years with very few contacts, because Wyatt has been entering his 
phenomenal scores in the limited rover class and been spending Saturday 
close to Chicago and the twin cities. I did better in 2015 after fixing 
the 857's excess SWR sensitivity on 432.
>
> 73
> Paul W0UC
> ______________________________________________________________
73, Jerry, K0CQ