[PaQSO] Bands

[Michael Coslo]

     Sorry I didn't get to reply to this earlier. Last week was  
amazing for me, and I'm just getting the time now.


On Oct 11, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Kay Craigie wrote:

> WA3RA wrote: "I also heard (post contest) that there wasn't  
> supposed to be
> 220/440 qsos...."
>
> True, there aren't any suggested frequencies for those bands in the  
> contest
> mailer. Does that imply that the bands above 2m are off limits?  
> Apparently
> some folks are interpreting it that way. However, if something is
> prohibited, the rules should say so explicitly, not do it by  
> implication.
>

     If it isn't prohibited it is mandatory?? Hehe!

     The way it rules are meant is that the bands that are in use are  
the ones mentioned.



> The rules do say, "12, 17, 30 meter and repeater QSOs NOT  
> permitted." If the
> rules also intended to ban QSO's on frequencies above the 2m band,  
> wouldn't
> that be stated in this list of no-no's?

     Not really. Those other bands are traditionally places that QSO  
parties aren't held, and repeater QSO's might be made by  
inexperienced hams, so we want to make sure that they don't  
accidentally do this.


> The rule would then say something
> like "12, 17, 30 meters, all bands above 2 meters, and repeater  
> QSOs NOT
> permitted."

     That does sound sensible.

> Since the rules do not explicitly prohibit QSO's on bands above 2  
> meters,
> seems to me you could operate on 10 GHz if that's your cup of tea.

     Sigh...

     I'm always very cautious of getting too explicit on rules. The  
more words, the more interpretation there is. The last thing I want  
to do is have to put in explicit language to accept or reject 160 KHz  
QSO's!!   ;^)



>
> If the sponsors do intend to rule out QSO's above the 2m band, I  
> hope they
> will specify that in the rules in future years. I'm not in favor of  
> it. For
> one thing, it would push away new hams who haven't upgraded to  
> General yet.
> They may not have 220 or 6 meters, but they probably all have dual- 
> band rigs
> with 440 MHz. If they enjoy the QSO Party on VHF/UHF, that could  
> give them
> the motivation to upgrade and become able to participate on HF,  
> too. All in
> all, I don't know what virtuous purpose would be served by prohibiting
> (non-repeater) QSO's above 2 meters.



     My own thoughts on the issue is that there is a natural break  
between HF and VHF.

     HF has the regional and worldwide propagation effect going on.  
And while 6 meters is naturally erratic, from 2 meters and up is  
generally  more localized.

     VHF and above is a different animal. Location is critical for  
getting a good score, and what do we think of when we think VHF in a  
contest? either a mountaintop station, or a van or truck festooned  
with beams at a mountain overlook.

     To me they are two separate approaches to partying/contesting.  
And I personally think the party as it is now is better on HF.

     Now how about a VHF and up PAQSO party???? 8^)

     - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -