[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the Geographic Playing Field [was:WhydidtheCan

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the Geographic Playing Field [was:WhydidtheCanadians (PT5M) beat the Americans]
From: "Don Field" <don.field@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:14:52 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
There's only one way to truly level the playing field and that's to sit all
the ops at a computer and get them contesting with Morse Runner or whatever.
No variability in antennas, take-off angle, terrain, QRN, etc. But is that
REALLY what WRTC is about?


On 8/22/06, Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> NP4Z:
> >I would do it very easy...
> get beach front locations north coast preferable, everyone running
> verticals
> and 100w..they will have great ears and solid signal to all areas of the
> world that are workable with little QRM.
> At the same time that would make it the most similar location with almost
> identical signals.
>          Yep.  Deja vu July 16, 2002 (below).  Spacing
> could be much closer than 1 mile with 100W plus better
> transceivers available today (IMD, BDR and Phase Noise).
>                                                  73,  Bill  W4ZV
> http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00179.html
>          In thinking about the WRTC 2002, the Finns certainly
> deserve our thanks for making the playing field as level as
> it has ever been by using identical antennas at the same height
> over flat terrain within a limited area of Finland.  From what
> I understand of prior WRTC's, the 2002 edition was a major advance.
>          However, I've heard of at least one instance of severe
> antenna interaction and problems with local power line QRN.  Noticing
> how poorly some of the excellent teams did in the standings, I cannot
> help but believe that there may have been more than one case of
> antenna interaction problems at specific sites.
>          Here are a few thoughts for the 2004 sponsor assuming
> someone steps up to the plate.  First, repeat the Finns' excellent
> idea of identical antennas over flat terrain at the same height within
> a limited geographic area, but remove antenna interaction and local
> line noise problems from the equation.
>          How to do this?
> 1.  Locate 50 stations along a remote flat seacoast a set distance
> from high tide levels every mile along a 50 mile stretch of isolated
> beach.  During the summertime, comfort should not be much of a
> problem due to temperature.  Tents, generators, porta-potties and
> coolers could provide what most of us need to survive a 24 hour contest.
> We do it all the time in Field Day don't we?
> 2.  Use identical multiband verticals with identical radial systems.
> These are simple, inexpensive, easy to erect, and should work very
> well near salt water.
> 3.  Use small <1KW generators like the VP8THU/VP8GEO team used...
> possibly backed up by UPS in case a referee temporarily forgets to
> refuel.
>          Something like this should remove the variables of antenna
> interaction and local power line noise, and I suspect there are
> areas (like National Seashores in the US) that are not too far
> removed from civilization for other necessary parts of the WRTC
> (administrative meetings, awards dinners, etc.).
>          Something to think about while WRTC is fresh in our minds and
> as clubs think about sponsoring the next WRTC in 2004.
>                                                  73,  Bill  W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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