Not taking sides in this debate, but the Reverse Beacon Network can't be
used to make your case, because there are several variables that can
very significantly affect the number of times that two stations with
identical signal strengths are spotted by a given RBN station's CW Skimmer.
The first of these is the format used while running. Unless CQ or TEST
appears in proximity to your callsign every 10 minutes, you will not be
spotted as often as theoretically possible. A station (or op) that ends
each QSO with TU NQ4I and nothing else will never be spotted. At least
some of the multi-op stations have already discovered this.
The second of these is significant speed variation. For example if you
send TEST at 40 wpm followed by your call, even twice, at 30 WPM I doubt
that CW Skimmer will recognize the connection between the two message
elements in the decoder stream. Me, I'm glad, because I've never
thought that such speed games were a good idea anyhow.
The third is the number of times your call is signed at the end of each
QSO, and the CW Skimmer validation settings in use at the RBN station
where the comparison is being made. Again, signing a couple of times
every 10 minutes, particularly with a well-known callsign, should
suffice; using a new, exotic callsign, like one of the multi-numeric
character calls so much in vogue, the program may want more repetitions
before it "takes it seriously."
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 7/2/2011 11:30 AM, Rick Dougherty NQ4I wrote:
> When you first load up the comparison, the number of spots are very
> telling...in every case NQ4I has more spots than NR5M...can only be
> one thing! PATH LOSS!!! Or NR5M took some un-necessary time off?
CQ-Contest mailing list