I also know, that HAMs operating/activating with a hand-held 2m or 70 cm RIG must not be judged by the same standard as HF operators. That is, I am not talking about them but HF activators.
Number of Activator QSOs : 616772
5MHZ : 39581 (1,6869710%)
7MHZ :249334 (40,042564%)
That is 23,736367 times more QSOs have been established at 40 meters compared to 60 meters. This can not be an accidental result, I dare to say, this indicates that there are almost 24 times less potential chaser partners! Haw! Whether why? As far as I know, the 60 meters band has been allocated for nobody else but British HAMs in IARU Region-1. (See: Amateur radio frequency allocations - Wikipedia )
Of course, I had also been a kid some 50 years ago, thus I also know that the newest toy is the kindest one for a child. Of course, I know the British way of thinking about the relationship of UK and the rest of the world (the continent). But, gentlemen, HAM radio is not a single actor game but a game demanding partners as well…
My point is as follows: Is it worth the candle to climb on top of a hill/mountain EXCLUSIVELY with a 60 meter dipole, operating EXCLUSIVELY at 60 meters, EXCLUSIVELY with British partners, that is establishing almost 24 times less QSOs as one might have established investing practically the very same effort at 40 meters (by the way with a 10 meters shorter antenna)? Is the propagation so luring, extraordinary there, that it can compensate the loss of almost 96% of the potential QSOs?
Gentlemen, help me understanding this puzzle, please! Is my way of thinking absolutely wrong?
My point is as follows: Is it worth the candle to climb on top of a
hill/mountain EXCLUSIVELY with a 60 meter dipole, operating
EXCLUSIVELY at 60 meters, EXCLUSIVELY with British partners, that is
establishing almost 24 times less QSOs as one might have established
investing practically the very same effort at 40 meters (by the way
with a 10 meters shorter antenna)? Is the propagation so luring,
extraordinary there, that it can compensate the loss of almost 96% of
the potential QSOs?
What makes you think that activators using 60m do so exclusively? The vast majority use other bands as well on their activations.
You totally misunderstood my point, even if I put the key word “exclusively” in capital letters. I don’t mind if someone works at 60m as well, but I wonder those working EXCLUSIVELY at 60m! Having a look at the alert list you can see that the vast majority of the activators specify several bands or 40m only (as the most effective one). However there are 60m only alerts also and this seemed to be peculiar for me. I don’t want to hurt anybody specifying his callsign. I admit, I am result focused.
Hi, Joska, I understand what you are saying, but there are special circumstances. 60 metres is an experiment in NVIS propagation, we are set to lose the band again next year at the end of the experiment so it makes sense to use it as much as we can to find out as much about it as possible, and we have established that if it ever becomes generally available in region 1 it will be the perfect SOTA band, better than 40 or 80 metres. Incidentally, it is or has been available to LA, TF, OH and OZ, too. Why not put some pressure on your licensing authority to give HA an experimental facility, too?
There have been a couple of occasions when I have had good contacts on 60 metres and had no replies on 40 metres so in the database it would look like a single band activation: last Sunday on G/WB-019 I got 12 contacts on 60 metres and then 6 contacts on 80 metres after getting no replies at all on 40 metres whereas two days earlier on G/WB-021 I got 12 contacts on 60 metres and 11 contacts on 40 metres. Nothing will appear in the database for 40 metres on WB-019 but that is the band that I wanted to operate on.
Your note gives me a very serious reason; trying to keep the temporary assignment of the 60m band, therefore forcing activity at that band is justified. Unfortunately we can not support your effort with our calls there. However I am sure, that you consider the sympathy of all HA HAMs in your attempt.
Thanks for your idea but for the time being I feel much more anxious about 50 MHz in HA. We have a 2 MW ERP OIRT CH-1 TV transmitter running parallel to the CCIR CH-24 2MW one 14 kilometers from me on top of a 480m high mountain. So it is totally redundant, useless, practically disabling operation on the magic band… We focus one in Hungary on making it switched off ASAP and altering our temporary and exception based 50 MHz licence into a permanent one.
I would like to suggest another reason for what you have observed. Some people (myself included) really enjoy NVIS operating. Personally, I like contacts in the local area on HF - its not a xenophobic thing, more that I find it intriguing to be able to speak to those I know who are relatively nearby (family, for example) despite the lack of line of sight required on VHF and up. NVIS SOTA for me is kind of a hobby within a hobby within a hobby! 60m has some interesting characteristics and I feel it is important to explore these while we can.
You mention 40m quite a bit. Personally, I shy away from the band, except when the foF2 is high enough for NVIS. I find it somewhat crowded, less relaxed and much harder to get good results on using 5W out of my FT-817.
While we’re on the subject(ish), does anyone know anything about the end of the 5MHz experiment? Is it really going to end next June, or is there the possibility of another extension?
Only rumours, Dave, Ofcom and the RSGB play with their cards close to their chests, but it is said that there are negotiations. It would probably strengthen our hands if we could track down and report the Funny Noise Guy and the Phantom Carrier Man!
Coincidentally, I was looking for details of the PW Huff Duff project online the other week. No joy, however. A chap at the club I used to attend built one, but I never saw it in action. Perhaps something along those lines would be a goer?
As far as I know, the 60 meters band has been allocated for nobody else but British HAMs in IARU Region-1. (See: Amateur radio frequency allocations - Wikipedia )