[OhQP-mail] [MRRC] 160 Meters in the Ohio QSO Party

k8gt at mi.rr.com k8gt at mi.rr.com
Mon Aug 31 12:22:57 EDT 2009

I think you hit all the points, Hal.  While I'm from MI and 160 would help me work more OH stations, all other aspects take priority, I think.  Also, what happens when sunspots return?  Do we then drop 160?  I think 40 and sometimes 80 go long enough to allow us to work the farther states, but a little earlier in the afternoon allows us access closer in, ie: I can work most of OH from MI.

I guess leave it as is.

73, Gerry,  K8GT

---- Hal Offutt <hal at japancorporateresearch.com> wrote: 

I'm a big fan of 160 but we should ask ourselves what the effect of adding 160 would be.  It will benefit some and hurt some, so we should look at the total picture.  Yes, it would add another band for close-in contacts, but I fear it might also contribute to making the OHQP more of a local event as opposed to a national (international?) event.  I note that this has been a principal criticism of the PAQP (which also counts counties for in-state stations and does allow 160 activity, and is a reason cited by lots of out-of-staters for not participating.  (BTW, PAQP sees very good activity on 160 from about 11 PM to 1 AM on Saturday night.  But since PAQP is a two-day event, the ratio of 160 contacts is lower than it would be for Ohio.)  

Under the current rules, when stations west of the Mississippi have trouble working OH on 20, they at least know that they can have a few good hours working OH on 40 (and 80) during the last four hours of the contest, but to the extent that activity moves to 160, they will have fewer stations to work on 40 & 80 and the contest may become less interesting to them.  Adding 160 also may be seen by some as sending the message "we vallue regional and in-state activity and don't care about participation from the stations further out."

I think we have discovered that 80 is useable throughout the contest period if people would only listen there, so having more 80/75 activity times and more publicity about using 80/75 during the day would help in-staters and those from nearby states to work more counties.  Eventually band conditions will change to allow more close-in contacts on 40.  

>From the mobile's standpoint, having to add 160 capability to a mobile station will make mobiling more challenging.  Challenge is not a bad thing, but mobiling is already extremely challenging so I don't know if we need any more challenge.  I have operated mobile on 160 in the PAQP but the antenna bandwidth is about 10 khz, it is hard to be heard, and the antenna is big and heavy.  I'd rather not have to mess with it.  More activity on 160 could also make the mobile pileups on 80 CW smaller, and since this is the funnest part of a mobile operation, I think this is a potential negative for the mobiles.  And since the role of mobiles is crucial to the success of the contest, we should be careful about rule changes that discourage mobile activity.

For the above reasons, I feel that adding 160 would probably not be a good move.

BTW, FL has been wresling with a similar issue - whether to add 80 to help out the stations in GA, AL, SC, etc. who have trouble working FL on 20.  I think they have come down on the side of no 80, but it may be a good idea to check with them.

I think the OHQP has become well established as a major late-summer contest event and it has gained a strong following.  If we want to improve it, I would say we should focus our efforts on trying to get more in-state activity from fixed stations and clubs.  The more of these we get, the more overall activity will improve.  Encouraging more DX participation might also improve the party, especially as 15 and 10 start to be better.           
73, Hal W1NN

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jimk8mr at aol.com 
  To: ohqp-mail at ohqp.org ; mrrc at contesting.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:28 PM
  Subject: [OhQP-mail] 160 Meters in the Ohio QSO Party

  A question while the recent OQP is still fresh in the mind:

  Would it be desirable to add 160 meters to future OQP's?

  As we wait (and wait, and wait) for sunspots to return, and with that for bands other that 80/75 meters to be useful for intrastate distances, would a shot to work people again on 160 meters be a welcome addition?

  Or should we keep things the way they have been?

  Opinions, and the reasoning behind them, would be appreciated.

  73    --    Jim   K8MR

  Chairman, Ohio QSO Party



  OhQP-mail mailing list
  OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
MRRC mailing list
MRRC at contesting.com

More information about the Ohqp-mail mailing list