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

David Pruett k8cc at comcast.net
Tue Sep 1 00:05:13 EDT 2009

Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
> 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

My opinion is NO, for the following reasons:

    * The purpose of OhQP should be, IMHO, to work out-of-state
      stations.  MiQP states this in writing.  I acknowledge that it is
      certainly possible to work out-of-state stations on 160M, but it
      IS harder.  If we're all down on 160M working each other, we'll be
      working fewer out-of-state stations.  Particularly if QRN gets bad
      in August, and it's been bad here in MI for the past two OhQPs.
    * As noted by others, it is VERY difficult to get QRV on 160M from a
      mobile.  The efficiency of a 8' whip on 1.8 MHz is very, very
      poor.  If home stations are down on 160M and the mobiles only go
      down to 80M, the end result is detrimental and fewer QSOs result.
    * Experience would cause us to believe that the 40M lack of short
      skip will resolve itself in a couple of years.
    * Once you get outside of the contester/DXer crowd, a lot of people
      don't have effective, or even ANY 160M antennas.  While the
      contesters might dig it, the general purpose ham might not and
      he'll be stuck on while the big guns exert their bigness on 1.8
      MHz.  But then again, you mobiles will have somebody to work.

I just don't think it's a good idea.  And I *have* a big 160M antenna.


More information about the Ohqp-mail mailing list