On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 15:49 -0700, J. Moen wrote: > I completelty agree with the sentiment in the post by Chris K4FH: "I > look at Field Day as a way to test and practice our ability to > communicate with minimal infrastructure."
Field day is a good day for new hams and older hams to learn about QRM, QSB, and QRN and any Q's I missed. If these hams were to be exposed to a linked world that was dependent on infrastructure for reliable communications they would have the false impression and understanding of propagation. They would also have no clue what to do when the repeater is off line and 2M simplex can't cover the Atlanta metro area. NVIS would be an option but having not done NVIS it could pose a problem for these hams. On person I know has commented to me "I like VHF over HF because VHF goes further". My guess that comment was based on the misconception of VHF propagation since this individual used linking technologies for DX. I don't want to hear things like that, especially in the ecomm world. Ed does make some great points about allowing repeaters and I don't really seem harm in it. In Atlanta many of the clubs have their own repeaters so they could use those repeaters to make contacts without stepping on each other's toes. I could see potential conflict if GARS tried to use NFARL's repeaters :) There is some "healthy" rivalry between those 2 clubs in regards to field day and when I talk about the desire for points over emergency simulation operation I'm thinking of those clubs specifically. One group could potentially "take over" a repeater and rack up some points. I was never concerned with the idea of allowing repeater usage. My concern was allowing linked repeater usage. Chris, k4fh
