[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] 1966 vs 2006 [was: Why did the Canadians (PT5M)beat the

To: Barry <w2up@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 1966 vs 2006 [was: Why did the Canadians (PT5M)beat the Americans...]
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:28:09 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Barry, I don't think you and I have any disagreement.  I was only trying to 
point out the fallacy of the "layer" notion - or as you say, discrete quanta.  
There is no doubt that as path loss decreases, more stations are workable, 
because they can now hear and be heard.  Propagation is as much or more of a 
variable than station differences, in many cases, but the sum total (path 
characteristics plus station characteristics on both ends) determines from 
minute to minute which stations are workable and which are not.

73, Pete N4ZR

At 06:47 PM 8/21/2006, Barry wrote:
>I disagree.  While there certainly are no discrete quanta of DX station 
>layers, there's no question that layers of stations are only workable when the 
>path loss is less than x.  
>As an example, look at the peak hours of a high-band EU run from the east 
>coast in the morning.  During the peak hour, stations like HG6N are 20+ over 
>S9 and the 5W/dipole guys are S2-S5.  Over the next few hours, HG6N starts 
>dropping and when they are below S9, the rate is considerably less.  Rates may 
>be about 170-180/hour during the peak hour, then over the next several hours 
>the rate declines to less than 60/hour.  Why?  It's not because the band is 
>worked out, as the same curve happens on Sunday morning (though with somewhat 
>less peak rate as there are less stations available to work.)  It's because 
>the weaker signals become inaudible in "layers" as the path loss increases.  
>In between HG6N and DL1XXX/QRP are several "layers" of intermediate signals, 
>each of which has its own threshold for being workable.
>In this case, the variable is propagation-induced path loss, but the same 
>thing applies with better antennas.
>Barry W2UP
>Pete Smith wrote: 
>>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 <mailto:n2icarrl@gmail.com><n2icarrl@gmail.com> 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."
>>>Hi Steve,
>>>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.
>>>Ev, W2EV
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>Barry Kutner, W2UP             
>Newtown, PA                     

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>