[Wswss] [50mhz] The Real Reason the "NO .52" rule exists & something toponder...

[Todd Evans]

The use of 146.520 simplex is what I highly encourage for everyday use and what would it hurt a few times per year for contesting as well. It may just encourage and otherwise FM only person to want to reach out farther and actually get on SSB or even CW. Having one single point where travelers and rag chewers can count on finding folks is a good thing in my opinion. Some folks insist that it's just a national "call" frequency and rag chewing should be strickly prohibited. Well, in my part of the Northern Mojave Desert, if folks don't hear any activity on a frequency, they tend to not monitor it at all. Generally, at least many of the hams I know, want to hear conversation and join in once in awhile and see how their radios and antennas are working.
While traveling back and forth from California to Oklahoma while listening and calling on 146.520, I hear maybe one or two stations, in three days! Are hams afraid to monitor or speak on 146.520 because some have coined it a "call only" frequency?
I encourage the use of 146.520 as it gets people together in one spot and others know where to listen and find other hams.
W6TOD DM15cq

--- On Fri, 4/27/12, John G. <af5cc at fidmail.com> wrote:

From: John G. <af5cc at fidmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wswss] [50mhz] The Real Reason the "NO .52" rule exists & something toponder...
To: "Tim Marek" <K7XC at charter.net>, "John V" <vjohnv at cox.net>
Cc: nccc at contesting.com, "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu>, "50mhz" <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>, vhfcontesting at contesting.com, PNWVHFS at googlegroups.com, wswss at mailman.qth.net
Date: Friday, April 27, 2012, 9:42 AM

I would love to see .52 be used again for VHF contesting!  Name one other 
contest that has a specific frequency banned for contest operation.

Also, if it is the national simplex frequency, let's promote simplex on it. 
I doubt in most areas you would make more than 5 or 6 QSOs on it during the 
contest anyways. I think very few people monitor .52 anymore, but lets 
encourage them to monitor it more, starting with the contesters.

73 John AF5CC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Marek" <K7XC at charter.net>
To: "John V" <vjohnv at cox.net>
Cc: <nccc at contesting.com>; "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu>; 
"50mhz" <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>; <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>; 
<PNWVHFS at googlegroups.com>; <wswss at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 4:36 PM
Subject: [50mhz] The Real Reason the "NO .52" rule exists & something 
toponder...


> Not many know the reason for the "NO .52 Rule" in VHF Contesting...
>
> A very "Infamous" West Coast VHF Contester told me the reason
> long ago and whle I'll leave him and him crew anonymous, the story
> is simply to delicious not to pass on...
>
> Back in the day of when all things electronic used "Glow FETs" (Tubes)
> he and his gang operated the June VHF Contest from atop a very tall
> and equally "Infamous" Mountain in the Bay Area of Northern CA.
>
> They had in their posession a 1KW Motorola FM transciever crystaled
> up on... you guessed it... 146.52 as it was legal then.
>
> They were so loud and heard so well they made hundreds of Qs all up
> and down CA and the surounding states and ended up never fired up
> the SSB gear.
>
> Having known the man a long time & after seeing his pics from
> those days of lore...  I believe him.
>
> Is what they did wrong? I dont think so... They saw a advantage that
> at the time was within the rules of the competition and exploited it for
> all it was worth. That is what winners do... look for a edge and use it.
>
> However... The outcry from many who were not on top of that hill was
> huge and later that year the ARRL created the"NO .52" rule in response.
> Move the clock forward 50 years and we are now rethinking letting
> .52 be legal again beacuse of a new "FM ONLY" category?
>
> If we are going to revisit this, why not right the injustice of what was
> done to the ROVER category 20 years ago and revert back to the
> original ROVER rules as well !?!?!?!?!
>
> AHHHH... that got you thinking didn;'t it! I can hear the screams
> now... Why doesnt he let that go? That is not the same!, etc etc....
>
> I submit to you the following.... The current rules are what they
> are based on all that has transpired before. As they are now,
> while not perfect... THEY WORK!
>
> What is the old adage? "IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT!!
>
> Leave the "NO.52" rule alone!!!!
>
> Solve the issue with education as to what frequencies should be
> used... Start a PR campain NOW to spread the word thru the
> clubs encouraging people to use their FM rigs WITHIN THE
> EXISTING RULES!
>
> Print up and supply handouts to Amateur Radio Stores/Clubs
> with the sale of each new FM rtadio explaining about the huge
> VHF Activity weekends in Jan, June, July, Aug, And Sep...
>
> LEAVE THE DAMN RULES ALONE! ENUF ALEADY!
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 50mhz mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 

______________________________________________________________
Wswss mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/wswss
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Wswss at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html