Sorry, certainly it looks like I have to mention that the below had place in
the EU land.
Vladimir VE3IAE - EU1SA
> Basic principles remain basic principles always, regardless when they are
> studied or analized, is it 1966 or 2006. For sure, there ARE several
> different layers of correspondents. And the layers depend of both antennae
> and location, too.
> Just recalling, once I've had a very interesting observation a few years
> ago. It was right after a major international contest. I got a call from
> people located some 300 km west of my QTH. The guy was almost loughing and
> being quite sceptic saying, look, do you know your neighbour [call] who
> took part in the contest? Certailny I was and said, yes. And you know
> what, said the guy, your friend is totally deaf. We have heard him calling
> CQ TEST all the time, there was a crowd of US stations calling him but all
> of them got just another CQ in return... Is he deaf or what? Ha, ha, ha...
> It was a perfect confirmation of a fact that between me (as well as my
> neighbour being the "deaf" guy) and the "good ear guys" there lays a
> border of 2 and 3 hops from the East Coast USA path. My friend, being one
> of the best CW operators I have ever seen , has been using an TS-850 +
> some 500 W and 3 ele full size beam for 40 m. I'm pretty sure, he is not
> deaf at all and he IS a great operator. But... His 3 ele plus 500 W
> transmitted were able to break another hop losses, so that the crowd of
> 100 W/wet noodle guys could hear HIM, but by return their energy could NOT
> break the 3rd hop power limit minimum required. Having had a couple of dB
> by, say, another element in his antenna array or so, he might open up
> another layer of asations, but... This is just reality. Me and my
> neighbour, we were at 3 hops from East Coast USA. The guy who were
> watching a crowd of callers was located at 2 hops...
> BTW I have also seen quite the same phenomenon (2 or 3 hops) having moved
> some 200 km North from the basic location.
> Just wanted to emphasize the facts that there are different layers of
> potential correspondents, indeed, and even a few hundred km of difference
> of location are extremely important sometimes.
> Vladimir VE3IAE - EU1SA
>> The W3AFM series was interesting in its time, but pretty rudimentary by
>> today's standard. One of the commonplace things in those days was to
>> equate DXing with contesting. This notion of "layers" of stations is
>> insupportable, when you think about it - no way 1000 or 2000 QSOs in a
>> contest could be sorted into discrete layers by signal strength. I think
>> it is inarguable, though, that any increase in either the strength of
>> your signal or your ability to hear other stations will increase the
>> number of stations you work in a contest period. How large an increase
>> before it makes 1 QSO's difference? I have no idea.
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> At 09:04 AM 8/21/2006, Radiosporting Fan wrote:
>>>--- Steve London <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> The original source for the "2 dB improvement" quote
>>>> probably comes from QST, September 1966, "Station
>>>> Design for DX" by W3AFM:
>>>> "Incidentally, in progressive antenna changes at
>>>> W3AFM, increments of only 2 dB in antenna gain have
>>>> opened up, in each case, a new layer of
>>>> workable central-Asian DX."
>>>Thanks for digging up this information. I was
>>>wondering about the source for this information
>>>Given the state-of-the-art in 1966 this sounds
>>>reasonable. Given the state-of-the-art in 2006 (and
>>>the ability of modern transceivers to dig out weaker
>>>signals), I would wonder if the number is closer to
>>>5-dB or more before "another layer" is revealed due
>>>simply to technical issues and not operator skill.
>>>Anyway...I'm just pondering and not making any
>>>statement of fact.
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list