[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field

To: <steve.root@culligan4water.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:45:22 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> But you are correct, as you move away from coastal areas it becomes much 
> more of a North/South issue.
> Stations in the middle of the country but located in the Southern tier of 
> states enjoy
> vastly improved propagation. That's why a simple "distance factor" would 
> have a minor
> impact on DX contest results. The true situation is much more complex than 
> a linear
> correction can address.

It is woefully apparent the actual path in relation to magnetic poles makes 
as much or more difference than the path length does.

Also I'm 100% sure distance is not a linear problem. A distance correction 
could never be level, unless it was different for every band and every 
distance. Even that would not solve the latitude and signal crossing the 
magnetic poles issue, which is much more obvious than distance.

For example, I can work VK6 long path (real long path, not skewed short 
path) from my mobile on 40 meters because the path misses the poles. I have 
a tougher time working UA0 with my stacked beams than I do VK6 from my 
mobile, even though the distance to UA0 is much less.

I just don't believe a change to distance based scoring would do anything 
for most people. It certainly would help people in the southern latitudes of 
North America, but it could actually hurt stations who already have it far 
rougher than the SE USA.

73 Tom 

CQ-Contest mailing list

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