I agree Tony. The same thing happens to us when we hear Caribbean Stations
on 160 and 80 running at 200+Qs/hr and I guess not even in our dreams we can
achieve that :-)
Anyway, this thread has been really educational to me and I bet to several
of us. I'm still convinced that a weighed scoring system can be achieved
taking in consideration factors such as paths, SFI, K and A indexes and the
resulting SNR between two geographical locations. But as I wrote in my
previous email: generating the needed data would take over 300 MILLIONS
records minimum. And to be honest, it still will not be a perfect and fully
balanced scoring system. No doubt it will be a really step forward respect
to what we have today.
Regardless of whether the ARRL adopts a new scoring system it would be a
very interesting collaborative experiment if we as a community can
brainstorm towards achieving what would be a fair scoring system based on
the factors mentioned above and the resulting effort that it takes to work a
station over a given path, under certain SFI and geomagnetic conditions on a
73 to all!
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM, N2TK, Tony <email@example.com> wrote:
> As W8JI and others pointed out there are many factors involved besides
> distance. In some cases such as 10M, particularly with present band
> conditions those closer to the US may be at a disadvantage. It is not fun
> listen to zone 10, 11, 12, 13 stations running the US on 10M when those of
> us in the northern parts of the Caribbean can't hear the US stations and
> only dream of their runs.
> Hey, maybe for closer in stations such as in the Leeward Islands we should
> be allocated time off and a special distance multiplier when the sun is hot
> and the rum drinks along the beach are cold?
> I vote to leave ARRL Test the way it is.
> N2TK, Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Luc PY8AZT
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 7:21 AM
> To: Martin , LU5DX
> Cc: CQ-Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor
> If this change will implemented on ARRL, we really do know, but If It
> would every contester might be hazarded. Life would change, and
> changes panic everyone. So, it's acceptable everyone is trying to
> minimizing their impacts.
> You hit the spot! Every point you got will represent the actually QSO
> value, doesn't matter where you are or the path you signal took.
> There is only one top 1st place, so let winner win and the others get
> the score they deserve by working Distance, I mean DX.
> 73, Luc
> PW7T Team member
> WRTC.2010 Brazilian Team Leader
> PY8AZT (also PT7AG, PX8C, ZZ8Z, ZY7C)
> LABRE, ARRL, CWJF & Fortaleza DX Group Member
> 2011/6/30 Martin , LU5DX <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Kind of a selfish point of view.
> > We down here do not complain about having a small time window to work USA
> > 160M , most probably just a couple of hours right before our sunrise
> > of the time.
> > But what does that have to do with assigning each QSO the value they have
> > based on the distance and the challenge involved in working those
> > What pressure are you talking about for other contest organizers?? They
> > likely will not move a finger to change anything.
> > Hats off to the ARRL for thinking about changing something that will
> > EVERY SINGLE ENTRANT based on what really matters when it comes to DX
> > contacts : DISTANCE!!!!!!!!!!! DX = DISTANCE. Get it??? No matter if
> > time window on 160 to EU is 48 hours, 1 hour or 2.5 minutes, or if your
> > to EU is over the pole or beaming 90 degrees, or if the A index is 1 or
> > Tom W8JI I must be one of your top fans in the universe, but come down to
> > and build whatever you want and try to win 160 from here!
> > You guys are really missing the point. It is not about WINING it about
> > recognition to the effort it takes to make a QSO based on the most
> > factor involved in DX communications = DISTANCE.
> > 73
> > Martin, Lu5dx
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Tom Haavisto <email@example.com>
> > > As Tom - W8JI has indicated, I don't see where such a scheme helps me
> > > much, and folks west of me - who have even a tougher time working
> > > Europe than I do - don't get much help either. Spend a few minutes
> > > with Jim - VE7ZO, and I am sure he can fill you in on how propagation
> > > is from this part of the world. It is what it is, and its a LOT
> > > different than what you are seeing in the sunny south. Then again, no
> > > hurricanes here either :-)
> > >
> > > However, I see a far bigger problem looming. Lets assume you succeed
> > > in your assault on Newington, and they implement the change you seem
> > > so desperate to have. What then? EVERY major contest will then be
> > > subject to the same pressure to "level the playing field" because
> > > someone, somewhere is disadvantaged by where they live, and it would
> > > be only fair to fix the scoring on those contests as well. Pretty
> > > soon we will all need computer logging and scoring to try and figure
> > > out where we can get the most points, what countries we should try and
> > > work, and and and on. Then, we need to tweak the scoring a bit more
> > > to make up for the folks that got short changed in the last set of
> > > scoring adjustments... So we tweak it some more. And on and on we
> > > go. To what end?
> > >
> > > EVERY contest is not fair to someone, somewhere. At the same time,
> > > that does not mean we cannot get on, have some fun, and do our best if
> > > that is our motivation. With skill, practice, good engineering and a
> > > bit of good luck, we can even win sometimes. That is why we have
> > > different contests at different times of the year. You win some, you
> > > loose some, and hopefully it all evens out in the end.
> > >
> > > Please stop trying so hard to "win" the ARRL DX here on the Internet,
> > > and do it on the air - just like the rest of us. If YOU cannot build
> > > a winning station where you live, that's not MY problem.
> > >
> > > Tom - VE3CX
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Rick Dougherty NQ4I
> > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > Here goes my take on how to fix ARRL.....
> > > > assign points on the following formula
> > > > 1000 miles = 1.0 points
> > > > 2000 miles = 2.0
> > > > 3000 miles =3.0 at so forth...so if W1 workd a DL1 and the distance
> > > > 2800 miles that equals 2.8 points
> > > > W4 to DL1 is 3700 miles = 3.7 points
> > > > W1 to JA = 10,000 miles = 10 points
> > > > w4 to JA = 12,000 miles = 12 points
> > > > W1 to FP8 = 370 miles = .37 points
> > > > W4 to FP8= 1100 miles = 1.1 points
> > > >
> > > > It is a fairly easy alogrithym to implement....use the distances
> > > > provided in the dat file in each computer based on the lat long of
> > > > stations.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It will need to be tested to see how it affects score...but it is
> > > > straight line distance based scoring system. I propose to make it
> > > > it should go both ways..i.e. the DL1 station would get the same
> > > > of points also...this would sure level things out.
> > > >
> > > > My whinning and complaining for the day.
> > > >
> > > > NQ4I
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list