<html><HEAD><LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="/webmail/static/deg/css/wysiwyg-3933289048.css" media=all>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18813"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>I'm not sure I want to drag a 130' piece of wire behind my airplane! That aside, we have plenty of band space and propagation on existing bands - the casual in-state participant is less likely to have 160 meters than 80 and what more would he realize if he had 160? It's nice to know where most of the participants will be hanging out and adding another band makes looking for those stations and potential multipliers even more difficult. No need to make changes in the rules. If we're concerned that 40 was too long this year then we forget to realize that next year it may be too short! I found the crappy conditions on 40 to be a challenge to me and my "on the spot" solution was most productive. Let's hope the higher bands will come back to life . . .will there be sunspots again?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ken</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>P.S. maybe we should add 2 meters - imagine what I could work at 10,000 feet! (too bad it doesn't work that way for hf)<BR><BR><BR>Aug 31, 2009 11:05:20 PM, <A class=parsedEmail href="mailto:k8cc@comcast.net" target=_blank>k8cc@comcast.net</A> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,153,204) 3px solid"><A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail" href="mailto:Jimk8mr@aol.com" target=_blank>Jimk8mr@aol.com</A> wrote:<BR>> A question while the recent OQP is still fresh in the mind:<BR>> <BR>> Would it be desirable to add 160 meters to future OQP's?<BR>> <BR>> As we wait (and wait, and wait) for sunspots to return, and with that <BR>> for bands other that 80/75 meters to be useful for intrastate <BR>> distances, would a shot to work people again on 160 meters be a <BR>> welcome addition?<BR>> <BR>> Or should we keep things the way they have been?<BR>> <BR>> Opinions, and the reasoning behind them, would be appreciated.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> 73 -- Jim K8MR<BR>> <BR>> Chairman, Ohio QSO Party<BR>Jim,<BR><BR>My opinion is NO, for the following reasons:<BR><BR>* The purpose of OhQP should be, IMHO, to work out-of-state<BR>stations. MiQP states this in writing. I acknowledge that it is<BR>certainly possible to work out-of-state stations on 160M, but it<BR>IS harder. If we're all down on 160M working each other, we'll be<BR>working fewer out-of-state stations. Particularly if QRN gets bad<BR>in August, and it's been bad here in MI for the past two OhQPs.<BR>* As noted by others, it is VERY difficult to get QRV on 160M from a<BR>mobile. The efficiency of a 8' whip on 1.8 MHz is very, very<BR>poor. If home stations are down on 160M and the mobiles only go<BR>down to 80M, the end result is detrimental and fewer QSOs result.<BR>* Experience would cause us to believe that the 40M lack of short<BR>skip will resolve itself in a couple of years.<BR>* Once you get outside of the contester/DXer crowd, a lot of people<BR>don't have effective, or even ANY 160M antennas. While the<BR>contesters might dig it, the general purpose ham might not and<BR>he'll be stuck on while the big guns exert their bigness on 1.8<BR>MHz. But then again, you mobiles will have somebody to work.<BR><BR>I just don't think it's a good idea. And I *have* a big 160M antenna.<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>MRRC mailing list<BR><A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail" href="mailto:MRRC@contesting.com" target=_blank>MRRC@contesting.com</A><BR><A class=parsedLink href="http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/mrrc" target=_blank>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/mrrc</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></html>