[mailto:cq-contest->email@example.com] Puolesta José Nunes CT1BOH
>Well it is clear that WRTC is not a plain level field event!
>I just looked into two stations but I'm sure a lot more differences
>and unless everyone goes to the flatlands of Russia , or to BS7H rocks
>verticals probably no WRTC will be even, unless a handicap system is
>developed. We have the technology to adjust each location to it's true
>potential, using programs like HFTA. Perhaps then, with a handicap
>WRTC will truly measure team operator performance.
>Contest CT1BOH - www.qsl.net/ct1boh
I do not remember logging you in IARU 2006.
I operated only SSB.
Sometimes my memory fails me, though.
Figure of merit - sounds like black belt thing?
Six sigma jargon is likely familiar also to others?
In Finland year 2002 everybody knew it is going to be one team that
wins. That was the team going to participate from OH2RF's summer
I am not WRTC 2002 organiser so I write this from a clear desk.
After the dust settled the winners did not have the best QTH.
I personally visited pre-contest a QTH I thought would make top two if
not win the event.
They did not.
In top three there was one team that had a 'top 5' QTH.
Also team counts a lot.
I mean a lot.
In Brazil I heard one team had technology that would run over the others
using a line of new transceivers in a very clever way.
They did not finish in top 3.
I am sure the 4-5dB of signal sure helps.
But that does not make the score or
The full package'.
I have noticed also at work that if an organisation can not utilise the
advantage of an exceptional FOM, or is distracted by other not so
optimal FOM, the organisation does not show winning results.
Congratulations to the winners.
Best package in 2006 !
Fully utilising one of FOMs that favoured them over the second team.
But was this FOM for Team VE the best over everybody else?
I do not think so.
CQ-Contest mailing list