CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??

 To: "'Tom W8JI'" , Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test?? "Dick Green WC1M" Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:32:32 -0400 mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 ```Doesn't some of the data already exist? HFTA comes with elevation statistics files for the ten US call areas that contain arrival angles for seven popular paths averaged over at least one solar cycle (maybe more?) If I'm not mistaken, the data could be used to determine path duration. I'm wondering if N6BV also has data on path gain to go along with the arrival angles. Doesn't he need that for the propagation charts he produces? 73, Dick WC1M -----Original Message----- From: Tom W8JI [mailto:w8ji@w8ji.com] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:34 AM To: cq-contest@contesting.com Cc: Fred Dennin Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test?? Scores are a product of many factors that are entirely the responsibility of the person controlling the operation. We want to take propagation out of the equation. The only way to do that is to determine the actual difference between areas. That clearly cannot be done with scores. There are two steps to solving this problem. First we have to know how much a path loss change actually affects contacts or scores. Second we have to know how much the average path loss changes with different locations. I found only one attempt at determining score vs. signal level (power), but the information processing method was so seriously flawed it is really totally useless. Signal level (or path loss) related to contacts or scores seems to be an unknown, and may never be solvable because of all the variables. We can quantify path differences pretty easy though. All we need to do is setup a few test beacons using identical very repeatable antennas in different areas with known power and let them run over a period of solar conditions. Then we look at skimmer comparisons. This would establish a typical path loss and opening duration for different geographical locations. >From that we have a very useful tool. I'm pretty sure there is software around that estimates things like this, but most likely it is not well verified. This would verify the software, if working software exists. It would also give us a real basis for any correction or geographical scoring. I'm pretty busy, but I'd be willing to work with a group of people interested in this. It would be something VERY interesting to learn. The equipment and work would be minimal. The very least we would get out of this, even if we could never translate it to what the real differences in score are, is to put a number on claims certain areas are at an insurmountable disadvantage. For example we might be able to say with some authority one area has xx% of the opening time and xx% average signal strength of another area. This really should have been done long before any proposal was made. Doing any correction by score alone is totally useless, unless we decide we want an overall handicap system and operator skills and station construction do not matter. For example if K3LR and I set up 100 watt transmitters on automatic keyers into dipoles and just let them run as often as possible at the same time during contest season, over a period of months we would get a really good idea exactly what geographic differences are. This would involve very minimal effort and time, and also give me a very good idea how my station compares to Tim's. Not only would this get the egos out of the equation, we would then learn when something is obviously wrong with something we are doing. It would give us a baseline for everyone to know how much signal level difference there should be on average between areas. I'm fairly excited at the prospect of doing something that can benefit all of us!! This could be one of the best QST articles ever, because it would be the ultimate BS filter on why some people actually have better results than others. It would stop a lot of negativity. :-) 73 Tom _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest ```
 Current Thread [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", w1md Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Tom W8JI Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Doug Smith Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Stan Stockton [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Tom W8JI Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Radio K0HB Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Dick Green WC1M <= Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Robert Chudek - K0RC Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Tom W8JI Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Robert Chudek - K0RC Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Tom W8JI Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??, Robert Chudek - K0RC Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Mike Fatchett W0MU Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Tom W8JI Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", Dick Flanagan Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing", J.D. \"Dan\" Weisenburger