[OhQP-mail] 160 Meters in Ohio QSO Party?
hal at japancorporateresearch.com
Wed Apr 15 19:20:03 CDT 2020
Jim W8WTS makes some very good points.
Basically, I believe including 160 would be a plus for big Ohio stations
and others within 200 miles of Ohio, but not so good for small stations,
mobiles and everyone else. If you're in Iowa, Florida or California and
many of the Ohio stations disappear to 160 during the last two hours to
work each other, you may just QRT.
When I was mobiling in the OHQP, the last hour on 80 was typically my
best hour of the contest. Allowing 160 would probably adversely affect
mobile rates. Not a good thing if you want to encourage mobile activity.
The PAQP has included 160 for a long time, so looking over their results
might be instructive, although condx in October are a lot different than
August, and the PAQP two-day format makes it a very different animal.
When I operated the PAQP as a mobile, I felt that I needed a 160 mobile
antenna and I usually managed to make an extra 60-80 contacts there, but
I was very weak and could only be heard when the band was quiet.
Mobiling on 160 in August is pretty much hopeless.
I guess it comes down to how the committee views the identity of the
Ohio QSO Party. Does it want to make the OHQP into a PAQP with lots of
instate action and not so much out of state participation, or does it
want to make it into a truly national QSO Party? Right now, clearly
the OHQP is much more like the PAQP than it is like the FQP, the CQP or
even the NEQP. If you want to keep and enhance that character, adding
160 may help a little. If the committee aspires to increase the
national character of the OHQP, perhaps they might consider giving more
points to high band contacts to lure more stations there instead of
Not an easy decision. Good luck.
73, Hal W1NN
On 4/15/2020 1:48 PM, James M. Galm, W8WTS wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I would argue against including 160 m, for a variety of reasons.
> First, while there are stations that one can work on 40 m that are not
> possible on 20 m, and there are stations on 80 m that are not possible
> on 40 m, there is absolutely no station that one can work on 160 m
> that cannot be worked on 80 m. That is just a fact of mid-summer D
> layer absorption. It is true that 160 m would add the potential for
> additional QSOs (QSOs counting once per band per mode) for those who
> have access to 160 m, but that tends to be the larger stations. 160 m
> does not create any new multiplier opportunities, since mults are once
> per mode. It seems unlikely that the mobile stations would get much
> traction on 160 m. Consider starting with a mobile 80 m setup, then
> take half of the effective antenna aperture and double the losses.
> Worse of all, adding 160 m skews the playing field in favor of big
> stations, at the expense of everyone else. The big stations can go on
> any band, be S9+20 dB and command everyone’s attention. They will do
> so on 160 m and run their scores up even higher. Small stations
> cannot command attention, they have to S&P people to work. Adding
> another band will spread all of the participants out, making it harder
> for small stations to find QSO partners, particularly on SSB. In an
> ideal world, everyone would be on one band at the same time so that it
> would be easy to find each other. The world of propagation is not
> ideal, so we have to hunt more than one band. Adding 160 m makes
> hunting less productive and being loud more productive, decreasing the
> low scores while increasing the high scores. It might instead be
> better to level the field so that more stations can be competitive.
> Regardless of what the committee decides, I look forward to seeing
> everyone in August.
> Jim, W8WTS
> OhQP-mail mailing list
> OhQP-mail at ohqp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OhQP-mail