>Why did the Canadians (PT5M) beat the Americans (PW5C) in WRTC 2006?
>The answer to this question is actually quite simple: Not enough Americans
>worked PW5C on 40 meters. No, it was not a national boycott to the American
>team by their fellow compatriots as you will see below…
>I just looked into two stations but I'm sure a lot more differences exist,
>and unless everyone goes to the flatlands of Russia , or to BS7H rocks with
>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 radio
>potential, using programs like HFTA. Perhaps then, with a handicap system,
>WRTC will truly measure team operator performance.
In my (subjective) listening before and during the contest, I couldn't tell
much difference between the stations on 40 and up, but I did notice big
differences in their signal strength on 80m. On 80m some were easy to copy
here, and some down in the mud.
It would be relatively easy to equalize transmit signal strengths however:
Have each station transmit in a set sequence like the 14.100 beacons. Then a
receiver (probably on another continent) with a calibrated s-meter could
measure the relative strengths. Do some averaging, and repeat for each band.
>From this, work out the required power output for each station on each band to
>equalize signals. It would be then very easy to use a wattmeter to monitor the
>power output from each station and for example disable the PTT line to the amp
>if the maximum allowed for that location/band is exceeded. A similar function
>is used in several wattmeters to disable the amp if the SWR is too high. The
>LP-100 wattmeter for example could probably do it easily with different
>settings on each band (frequency is automatically measured by the meter).
There might be problems with obstructions/hills affecting one direction. Also,
equalizing locations for receiving (local noise) would be much harder.
CQ-Contest mailing list