[PaQSO] Bands

[Ron Notarius]

Since the subject has been brought up, might I suggest the following?

The rules, in the future, say:

(a)    "no QSO's about 148 MHz"
or
(b)    "non-repeater QSO's about 148 MHz are permitted"
or
(c)    "non-repeater QSO's about 148 MHz are permitted but not encouraged"

That removes all ambiguity.

Personally, I think if someone wants to take the time and equipment to
operate on UHF on the contest, let them!  I'm not saying it would be an
efficient use of time or resources -- right now, there's not enough
potential activity to justify it, or is there? -- but that can & should be
the decision of the operator or operators.

Further, while much of the state has little 220 MHz activity, it IS a
frequency band where our few remaining Novices have some privileges, and
there are quite a few V/UHF-only Tech & higher operators out there (either
by license class and/or operator's choice).  There is an untapped potential
there... whether or not the contest organizers or "us regulars" want to look
into that being another story.

Finally... FWIW, while there isn't a V/UHF equivalent of Pa QSO out there
(yet), there are some local contests that come close.  The WASH club in the
South Hills of Pittsburgh has sponsored a 2 Meter Simplex contest every
January -- this coming one will be our 6th annual.  (Shortly after we
started doing it, I know a group out near Philadelphia tried to do the same
thing (though on a different date); I haven't heard anything about that for
awhile, so I don't know how succesful it was/is.)  It's a "shorty," 4 hours
on a Saturday evening.  While activity has dropped off a bit, we still get
anywhere from 50 to 75 stations active.  So there is a potential out
there...food for thought.

73, ron wn3vaw

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Coslo" <mjc5 at psu.edu>
To: "PA QSO Party" <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] Bands


>      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 -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso