<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18812">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For the above reasons, I feel that adding 160 would probably
not be a good move.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>73, Hal W1NN</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Jimk8mr@aol.com href="mailto:Jimk8mr@aol.com">Jimk8mr@aol.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=ohqp-mail@ohqp.org
href="mailto:ohqp-mail@ohqp.org">ohqp-mail@ohqp.org</A> ; <A
title=mrrc@contesting.com
href="mailto:mrrc@contesting.com">mrrc@contesting.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [OhQP-mail] 160 Meters in the
Ohio QSO Party</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>A question while the recent OQP is still fresh in the mind:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Would it be desirable to add 160 meters to future OQP's?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or should we keep things the way they have been?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Opinions, and the reasoning behind them, would be appreciated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>73 -- Jim K8MR</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chairman, Ohio QSO Party</DIV></FONT>
<DIV id=4d2ea78aa8823997b4b100f7f7f4d4 class=aol_ad_footer><BR><FONT
style="FONT: 10pt arial,san-serif; COLOR: black">
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>OhQP-mail mailing
list<BR>OhQP-mail@ohqp.org<BR>http://mail.ohqp.org/mailman/listinfo/ohqp-mail_ohqp.org<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>