2016 Summer VHF-UHF Field Day

[VK2ZRH]

Having arranged for good Hepburn charts and few clouds of sporadic E, I'm glad some of you Field Day guys had a "good time", after all.

[VK3ZAZ]

Having arranged for good Hepburn charts and few clouds of sporadic E, I'm glad some of you Field Day guys had a "good time", after all.

Did I miss you?
Must get a better RX here I guess.
Missed ZL this morning as I had to work.
But got VK6 with 5 watts.


I tell a lie just checked logs and
VK3ZAZ portable worked a VK2ZRH on 5th Dec 1973 at 203z 59 59
and with VK2AM we chatted about someone working VK3 on 144.105 for the first time..

Who's Hepburn you mean my old mate Harold Hepburn?
cheers Rog

[VK3BA]

As part of the VK3ALB/P crew along with VK3FJEN & VK3BJM, I managed to take some pics in between some DX contacts with the wine rack. Here's one of them...

Cheers,

[VK3KQ]

Great weekend. Many thanks to all who provided the numbers to Vk3Kq/P up at Enfield. Lots of fun was had as well as doing business.
See link.
Looking forward to JMFD. See you then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Dnv4Jao8A




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr8ypD5dOwc.




P.S. My camera work has a lot to be desired.

[VK3QI]

Great videos Damian.

My only criticism - your housekeeping leaves a lot to be desired!

Surely you could have had an Au Pair join the team to keep your tent in order.

Cheers

Peter VK3QI

[ZL1TPH]

Watched both videos and I am suitably impressed ...

Well done guys - and look forward to seeing the results in the W.I.A mag and online etc.

Cheers, Steve

[VK3PY]

Another VHF/UHF Field day has come and gone. At least this time we had some decent propagation to enjoy, with good tropo conditions as far away as VK6. Our team (VK3UHF) managed to work VK6LD on both 2m and 70cm, as did several other stations in VK3.

Which brings to mind the “distance” based scoring system introduced some time ago at the behest of those who felt hard done by with the traditional grid-square based scoring system. I believe it’s time to re-visit the distance-based system, and ask if it’s achieving what its protagonists said it would.

In particular, do the Division 2 rules really encourage long-distance contacts? Recall that the push for distance-based scoring was initiated by operators who felt disadvantaged by their distance from large population centres, and consequent scarcity of contacts. They hoped that rewarding distance would somehow improve their competitiveness, or at least give them more contacts. Instead, what has been the practical outcome? My observation is that the Division 2 rules overwhelmingly favour stations which are set up on a hill top, 50-100km from a large population centre and proceed to churn through heaps of contacts at what are mostly trivial distances. I remarked some time ago in a couple of posts on this topic that the average distance of contacts was less than 80km. So much for rewarding distance.......

I contend that the Division 2 rules actively discriminate against operators in remote locations. This is further compounded by the reduction of the repeat contact period from 3 hours to 2 hours (who asked for that one? It seems to have been slipped in without discussion). In fact, the practical effect of the Division 2 rules is to reward QUANTITY of contacts at trivial distances.

I am not against the concept of distance-based scoring. However, as the evidence shows, the simple “points-per-km” method currently in use does not properly reward long-distance contacts. It treats the first km of a contact as being worth as much as the last km. Ask yourself this: Is it as difficult to make 10 contacts on 2m at 100km as it is to make one contact at 1000km? Hardly!

If distance-based scoring is to be retained, then a progressive scoring system would be more appropriate, assigning a single point for contacts up to 100km and increasing from there in increments out to, say, 500 or 1000 km. Something along the lines of the VHF section of the John Moyle Contest would be a good starting point. Or just ditch Division 2 and retain Division 1 as the latter effectively has a built-in incentive to work greater distances by virtue of the bonus applied to each new grid square worked.

Chas
VK3PY

[VK3LL]

Thanks Damian for posting the clips. One thing I have now realised is that the 3ALB team have a table cloth! I think we'll need to duplicate that idea. Their xmas tree was also a very nice touch, but I'd need to be convinced that the LED lighting was compliant with respect to EMR - hate to have it chucking "spewglies" all over 2m

Overall, the weekend was great. We worked more Australian states/territories than ever before and logged QSOs with stations in VK1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7. The standout for us was the contact with Rob VK6LD on 2m and 70cm and throughout the weekend we contacted 77 distinct stations in total, which was up from 64 in the Spring Field Day. As you saw in Damian's videos we ran three rigs at once, and also had a "relief" operator (Matt VK3PP) to allow us all have a break every now and again.

The air conditioning (and its dedicated generator) was a wise investment - it can get quite warm in VK3 during the day, and Sunday's 33deg outside temp meant it could have climbed to over 40 inside the tent. But the aircon kept both the temperature right down and the operator's comfort factor up.

We had only one significant technical hitch - one of our TS2000 transceivers suffered from a Rx problem (the classic ceramic resonator problem in the receiver's IF strip that plagues this particular rig when it begins to age). So I drew the short straw to make the 5-hour return trip back to Melbourne, to pick up the spare rig which we'd forgotten to pack.

This was the only significant issue we had to contend with. On the plus side, our new 70cm PA (called Big Bert) - built from one of the NEC V1000 TV transmitter modules - ran very smoothly and gave a comfortable 300W output with neither effort nor complaint.

Thanks go out to the other members of our team (Damian/Mike/Matt) and especially to all the stations that worked us throughout the weekend.

Cheers and all the good numbers,
Ralph VK3LL
VK3KQ/p team.

[VK3QI]

Chas VK3PY,

I am in agreement with you regarding the issues that you have raised with the Division 2 points scoring.

It is painfully obvious that 10 qsos @ 100kms works out to be the same as 1 qso @ 1000kms - it is a matter of opinion as to which is more difficult to achieve. One qso @ 1000kms for 1 minute or 10 qsos @ 100kms for 1 minute each, spaced 2 hours apart!

Regarding the 2 hour repeat rule which was slipped in - several ops have commented that it is difficult to keep up with all the qsos - exhausting!

Personally, I still favour the Division 1 Grid square method with its built-in incentive to achieve extra distance by working more grid squares on each band. That also, I believe, encourages more operators to get out and about to different grid squares or encourage operators who live in rarer grid squares to become very popular people!

The issue that I have, with either Division for that matter, is the differing multiplication factors for each band.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MULTIPLIER SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERY BAND.

The concept that it is more difficult to work on higher bands is 20th century thinking!

As your team (3UHF) and our team (3ER) know, in the 21st century, getting the microwave bands up and running is really no challenge, given the proliferation of satellite dishes, LNAs, commercial manufacturers and ex commercial amplifiers up to 10Ghz and above on the second hand market.

I would argue that it is actually easier to produce 200 watts on 2.4 Ghz (using a Spectrian amplifier and minikits transverter and a low power HF rig for the IF (such as an FT817) with a $50 2.4 metre dish) OR 50 watts on 3.4 Ghz into an offset dish and home brew horn

THAN to produce 200 watts on 144 MHz into a large stacked yagi- array with appropriate mast etc.!

The EIRP on the 2.4Ghz is startling by the way!

Similarly, over the last 16 Summer/Spring Field Days, there has only been one day when 6 metres has produced anything like the number of qsos and points that the current Division 1 multiplier system suggests would be the case, compared with 2mx and 70cms.

In every other case, the multiplier of 3 (and 5) over 6 mx has meant that 6 metres has always had significantly less points than other bands.


So my (personal) position is:

(1) Retain Division 1 scoring (Grid square based)
(2) Back to 3 hour repeats
(3) Remove all band multipliers
(4) Change the definition of a rover to be more than 1 activation area (not two).
(5) Maintain the various sections, such as 6,2,70&1.2, which have been developed in the past two years.

I believe that will actually encourage more 6 metre activity (not a bad thing) whilst not acting as a disincentive to work as many of the higher bands as possible.


It will be interesting to read responses from those who favoured a change and have actually participated in recent FD's and what their take on how the rules have operated.

Regards

Peter VK3QI

[VK3PY]

Peter VK3QI,

A pretty good summary of the state of play. We are, it seems, in broad agreement. However, one point you haven't considered is the relative opportunity for contacts on each band. Clearly, there are fewer opportunities for contacts the further up the spectrum one goes. The propagation is progressively more challenging, too.

I remember having this very discussion a very long time ago with the previous contest manager, John VK3KM. His perceptive approach was that in the real world, an entrants' score on each band ought to be about the same, reflecting (a) the relative difficulty of obtaining equipment for that band, (b) the propagation that is likely to prevail and (c) the number of active operators on each band. History suggests he got it right. Obviously, the band multipliers might need tweaking from time to time (as indeed, did happen).

Six metres has always presented a conundrum. It is an easy band to set up, of course. Propagation can be exceptionally good (read: easy DX) or abysmally poor. How does one assign an equitable score to this band? Does it even belong in these contests? It is very much the joker in the pack.

Chas
VK3PY

[VK2UL]

Another VHF/UHF Field day has come and gone. At least this time we had some decent propagation to enjoy, with good tropo conditions as far away as VK6. Our team (VK3UHF) managed to work VK6LD on both 2m and 70cm, as did several other stations in VK3.

Which brings to mind the “distance” based scoring system introduced some time ago at the behest of those who felt hard done by with the traditional grid-square based scoring system. I believe it’s time to re-visit the distance-based system, and ask if it’s achieving what its protagonists said it would.

In particular, do the Division 2 rules really encourage long-distance contacts? Recall that the push for distance-based scoring was initiated by operators who felt disadvantaged by their distance from large population centres, and consequent scarcity of contacts. They hoped that rewarding distance would somehow improve their competitiveness, or at least give them more contacts. Instead, what has been the practical outcome? My observation is that the Division 2 rules overwhelmingly favour stations which are set up on a hill top, 50-100km from a large population centre and proceed to churn through heaps of contacts at what are mostly trivial distances. I remarked some time ago in a couple of posts on this topic that the average distance of contacts was less than 80km. So much for rewarding distance.......

I contend that the Division 2 rules actively discriminate against operators in remote locations. This is further compounded by the reduction of the repeat contact period from 3 hours to 2 hours (who asked for that one? It seems to have been slipped in without discussion). In fact, the practical effect of the Division 2 rules is to reward QUANTITY of contacts at trivial distances.

I am not against the concept of distance-based scoring. However, as the evidence shows, the simple “points-per-km” method currently in use does not properly reward long-distance contacts. It treats the first km of a contact as being worth as much as the last km. Ask yourself this: Is it as difficult to make 10 contacts on 2m at 100km as it is to make one contact at 1000km? Hardly!

If distance-based scoring is to be retained, then a progressive scoring system would be more appropriate, assigning a single point for contacts up to 100km and increasing from there in increments out to, say, 500 or 1000 km. Something along the lines of the VHF section of the John Moyle Contest would be a good starting point. Or just ditch Division 2 and retain Division 1 as the latter effectively has a built-in incentive to work greater distances by virtue of the bonus applied to each new grid square worked.

Chas
VK3PY

Hear hear !

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

[VK3ALB]

.
.
.
The issue that I have, with either Division for that matter, is the differing multiplication factors for each band.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MULTIPLIER SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERY BAND.

The concept that it is more difficult to work on higher bands is 20th century thinking!
.
.
.
.
It will be interesting to read responses from those who favoured a change and have actually participated in recent FD's and what their take on how the rules have operated.

Regards

Peter VK3QI

My personal experience and opinion differs.

As Chas said the opportunity to work the higher bands is lower than for 6/2/7/23 and even 13cm. 13cm and above is where we find less standard operators for a start and even though they have access to 5.7GHz I don't think we have ever worked a standard call on 5.7GHz in all the time we've been in the FD. So we have an obvious "availability" issue above 13cm.

Secondly, as you move higher in frequency the path losses over terrain do become greater beyond what FSPL tells us and a good path at 1296 might not necessarily allow a contact on the higher bands. I have observed that distance and frequency do have an impact on the ability to regularly and successfully make contacts over 100km on 2.4GHz and above.

Let's look at 24GHz and 47GHz. Even over a LOS path from VK3ALB to VK3UHF at 38km it is not a given that we will work on those bands on every attempt we make. More so at 100km and beyond. Conditions do affect the outcome and I don't think any reasonable increase in expenditure will fix that.

I can offer a number of other examples where working the same operators over the same path (including VK3ER) using the same gear we have not been successful on every single occasion we tried to work them.

Of course this does not take into account equipment failures or the excellent conditions such as we experienced this past weekend.

I would argue that the band multiplier remains.

One another point, when the discussion on distance based scoring started there was a statement to the effect that "distance based scoring would bring new operators into the contest". Has this happened and if so to what extent and to which bands?

Roger, keeper of the numbers, (I understand in an interim capacity only) how are we going there and how are the full results for Spring 2015 coming along?

[VK2AVR]

Both scoring systems have their merits. I am actually happy to have both scoring systems running in parallel because it lets people customise the competition to their liking and target different aspects of the hobby.

I prefer distance based as it is independent of arbitrary (grid square) lines on a map. However I recognise that some people enjoy grid hopping as rovers, and that's great for them!

The wildcard in distance based scoring is 6 metres. When it opens (which I greatly enjoy) a simple dipole can get 2000km contacts interstate or to New Zealand (although on the weekend it was quite challenging due to fading). To me, this is far more exciting than working somebody 14km away who happens to be in a different grid square and I like that the distance based scoring rewards it. However, it is a luck factor for sure.

So here's an actual example of per band scores for VK2MB (as logged) as well as our antennas:

6m: Inverted V on 7m squid pole
2m: 4 element yagi on rotatable mast
70cm: many element yagi on rotatable mast
23cm: many element yagi on rotatable mast

Division 1 (Locator based):
6m: 18 QSO's 98 points
2m: 12 QSO's 156 points
70cm: 3 QSO's 165 points
23cm: 0 contacts

Division 2: (Distance based):
6m: 18 QSO's 8,476 points
2m: 12 QSO's 680 points
70cm: 3 QSO's 315 points
23cm: 0 contacts

General activity levels were very low for us in Sydney. Not much local traffic was heard on any of the bands compared with previous years.

Of the 18 contacts on 6 metres, 6 of those were vie E's into VK7 and ZL. Other states were heard at times but rapid fading produced several abandoned contacts.

Thing is, 6 metres was the only fun part of the day. The thrill of the chase was there, and the Division 2 points were lucrative when it was successful!

70cm only had 3 contacts, that's pathetic. Why did we get the most points for 70cm in Division 1? It was s**t!!!

I feel our relative scores from band to band under Division 2 accurately reflects the amount of fun that was had.

Every VHF/UHF day I have been in, the grid locator system just hasn't aligned with my enjoyment of the day when I think about how the contacts were made. With distance based, it seems to line up well with the enjoyment factor for the way we operate.

Of course, if you love collecting grid squares you will feel differently

[VK2ZRH]

Hi Lou,

Thank you for your carefully thought-out observations.

The "first cut" of the full results for the Spring 2015 event is dated 1 January 2016. The last, latest, abso-bloody-lutely final draft was emailed to the other three ad-hoc team members this morning for their imprimateur (yet to be received). I'm anticipating posting it today sometime (perhaps this evening . . .). There has been some interesting to-ing and fro-ing about logs submitted and Rules interpretations, which I finally resolved earlier this morning. All in the name of fairness and equity.

It is fair to say that a number of new operators have joined in the contests over 2014-2015, in addition to some operators who gave away the field days before the "dual rules" (or is that "duel rules"?) and have "returned". What has influenced these things is likely to be complex, rather than a simple "oh, that was it".

[ZL1TPH]

Hi all,

I currently manage VHF contesting in ZL and we use distance based scoring.

Over here, it does seem to work well and has been around for as long as I can remember.

Its gets updated from time to time (preferably at a start of a year) and if anything some of the point scorings has been reduced for the lower microwave bands because of new technology.

Below URL are the rules and distance based scoring tables.

http://www.nzart.org.nz/activities/cont ... and-above/

And the URL below are some of the results: If you click on the very bottom right link named “2015 VHF Field Day 2015 a PDF is opened up and it shows how we present the results and with FD being our main event I place in a few photographs to hopefully to inspire others to give it a go.

http://www.nzart.org.nz/activities/cont ... t-results/

Cheers, Steve – ZL1TPH

[VK2ZRH]

Hi Geoff VK2AVR,

Thanks for your observations and factual data. Interesting. A pity about the lack of other stations in VK2. In future, you might consider lining-up some aircraft enhancement contacts.

I have read through the NZART rules and distance-based scoring, Steve. It has the advantage of simplicity.

Just so that everyone's singing from the same song sheet when it comes to distance-based scoring for the VK VHF-UHF Field Days, I have attached my paper on the subject: "The basis of distance-based scoring for the VHF-UHF Field Days".

Distance_Based_Scoring_ARMAG_2014_06_June-2.pdf

(206.94 KiB) Downloaded 235 times

Note that it's based on the known characteristics of propagation and not on "think of a number to start with and increment from there".

[VK2HRX]

snip

General activity levels were very low for us in Sydney. Not much local traffic was heard on any of the bands compared with previous years.

snip

This is a far bigger issue than how to score it. I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable. I used to get out and enter in all VHF/UHF Field days as it was great fun and good practise in setting up a portable station. The AR community in VK2 supported by the WIA and contest manager needs to find a way to get people reinvovled.

I've QSY'd to SOTA.

Compton
VK2HRX

[ZL1TPH]

Thanks Roger,

I do have many W.I.A mags here and am a member but may have missed your paper.

Have printed out a tic ago and will have a close read over the next few days. I won’t make comment later – but only to say distance based scoring is based upon the degree of difficulty.

I’d just like to compare silently - to see if we can make improvements with our distance based scoring because we have a few quirks in ours that I would like to iron out over time.

Also noted the professionalism in presentation, using a space between 2 and m, the same as it’s is 144 MHz, not 144MHz and the likes of 700 km not 700km. I like the references added with a space also like …(“spread Es”) [2] rather than being butted up together up as many do.

We have discussed this spacing in ZL, and came to the conclusion that a half space would be better but word does not allow that along with pre post or typesetting software.

Thanks again for sharing…

Cheers, Steve

[VK3PY]

VK2HRX wrote:

I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable

What a strange sentiment, Compton. Here we are discussing the merits or otherwise of distance-based scoring in a field day contest, yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals. Why not try to work longer distances? It is possible! For a while now I've been pondering whether to continue my participation in these field day contests because it has become pretty boring to churn through piles of local contacts that I could make any time, with little or no effort.

Chas
VK3PY

[VK2HRX]

VK2HRX wrote:

I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable

What a strange sentiment, Compton. Here we are discussing the merits or otherwise of distance-based scoring in a field day contest, yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals. Why not try to work longer distances? It is possible! For a while now I've been pondering whether to continue my participation in these field day contests because it has become pretty boring to churn through piles of local contacts that I could make any time, with little or no effort.

Chas
VK3PY

..........yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals........

Sorry not true. When I did do the field days the joy was the VK3's and 4's in the early mornings.

I'll leave you guys now to sort out the scoring.