[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network
From: David Robbins <k1ttt@verizon.net>
Reply-to: k1ttt@arrl.net
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:47:03 -0600 (CST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
There is room for improvement.  The skimmer software also has the capability to 
spot callsigns it hears that are not calling cq.   This would find s&p 
stations.  for obvious reasons this is not useful for contest operators 
searching for stations who are cqing so they can call them... but it would be 
interesting for studying propagation of comparing signals.  The volume of this 
data would obviously be much larger than the spots of stations calling cq.  

Of course the best way to adjudicate contests would be to do the full bandwidth 
recordings, then post processing could find stations cqing or not, with 2 
signals when they shouldn't, and would allow comparison of signal strengths 
instead of just the snr values the skimmers generate.

Feb 14, 2011 07:53:33 AM, sm6lrr@gmail.com wrote:

Hello! It is correctly assumed that RBN actively searches stations by looking 
for the letter combinations CQ and/or TEST. It means that highly 
efficent/skilled QRP and LP Search and Pounce stations can score very well 
without leaving many traces on RBN. The new interesting possibilities of RBN 
has actually been so efficient that "at least" a few wellknown QRP contesters 
from Europe TOTALLY has changed their contest behaviours from a good mix of RUN 
and S/P to almost exclusively use S/P. The reason why they have become much 
more cautious to expose their SNR is up to all of you to judge... One thing is 
clear, the amounts of noticed spots for certain QRP stations dramatically 
decreased when comparing RDXC and WPX CW of 2010 with later contests the same 
year. RBN as one of the tools to evaluate performance is really interesting, 
but a BIG/HUGE amount of spots must be collected and carefully analyzed. 
Compared stations must also be geographically close. It shows better comparison 
 values when looking at stations who use non-rotatable antennas AND the easiest 
cheating to determine is QRP stations actually using LP or more power. To 
detect LP to HP cheating is more delicate... RBN in itself can hardly be the 
single tool to determine cheating with power levels, but combined with other 
information, a skilled organizer like RDXC CC can make "nice" catches. 73 de 
R3/SM6LRR, Mats

* Original message *
RE: [CQ-Contest] Reverse Beacon Network Question

With the news that the Russian DX Contest will want additional 
information from QRP and LP entrants so that a comparison between 
signals can be made using the Reverse Beacon Network, I decided to 
compare the results for the recent Sprint CW contest. I compared the 
top five LP stations in the 3830 results (in order: KU5B, K7BG, N9CK, 
N5DO, and N7CW) for February 6 using the Signal Comparison Tool . I 
selected the Reverse Beacon from K3LR because it had the most spots on 
that day -- 11,011. Nothing dramatic jumped out at me from looking at 
the graphs comparing the signals, except for one thing: The number of 
times each station was spotted by the Reverse Beacon. Those were 
surprising: KU5B was spotted 0 times, K7BG 58 times, N9CK 0 times, N5DO 
72 times, and N7CW 63 times. 

The leading station and number 3 were never spotted at all! 

I thought maybe it was a propagation issue, so I picked a leading 
Reverse Beacon from the west coast, WA7LNW, with 6,038 total spots on 
that day. The same pattern occurred: KU5B 0 spots, K7BG 46 spots, N9CK 
0 spots, N5DO 37 spots, and N7CW 12 spots.

Is this some artifact of the Sprint contest? Is there something in the 
way KU5B and N9CK called CQ that led to them not being spotted? And is 
there a secret to being spotted more often? How will results like this 
effect the ability of the RBN to be an investigative tool?

CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

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