CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Radio Laws of Propagation....Have they been re-invented?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Radio Laws of Propagation....Have they been re-invented?
From: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Reply-to: herbs@vitelcom.net
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:46:26 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
This is my first post on this reflector and I do so with caution but extreme concern that contests at least stay somewhat competitive in all categories. I must admit in 50 years of enjoying contests I have never quite seen anything like this and it is repeated year after year. I don't want to make false accusations but some station claiming to be QRP "3.7 watts in the past or in this case "42 watts" as published on the 3830 Reflector recently, are claims so far beyond credulity that careful examination is warranted by their claim.

Why am I concerned?..... Each year contest visitors come to this part of the world to operate, some just for fun, but others the spend significant money to build fine contest stations. There efforts, their country multipliers are appreciated. Their efforts are as they should be, duly lauded. However what is troublesome is those who come all they way to the Caribbean and try to compete but have their efforts ruined by others who should get the Contest Committee Pinocchio award, rather than a beautiful plaque. My reference is for a particular station for claiming to be QRP in the past with 3.7 watts and running the tables or in this case "42 watts" as was the case with one entry in the ARRL CW contest this month with a nearby SOAB LP category. My contest station NP2P is a an adequate contest station with good antennas from near the ocean and runs 1500 output to an Alpha 87A. Of interest is the comparison during the ARRL CW contest of SOAB-HP of NP2P and the SOAB-LP of KP4KE who made the claim on the 3830 Reflector that his power was only 42 watts. Rather then make some wild accusation I sincerely ask to look at the RBN signal levels for both stations at the same time on the same band. If you can believe him I would like to talk to about buying shares in my new St. Thomas to St. Croix bridge project. Here is the rationale:

Just go to RBN and put in a spot analysis at any location on the mainland for the ARRL DX CW this month. Pick any reporting station like W3LPL or AA4VV or WA7LNW and compare, for Saturday February 15, 2014, the signal levels of KP4KE (42 watts) and NP2P (1.5KW) especially on the low bands. Antennas on the low band are essentially the same. KP4KE claims (3830 report) that has a dipole at 60' on 80 and so does NP2P. (NP2P is 65 feet ABG. He claims on 40 meters a delta loop at 70' and NP2P has a dipole at 65 feet. Now do you know how his claim of 42 watts to these antennas can outperform similar antennas into the mainland locations against a station that is running (NP2P) 1500 watts? Look at the low band analysis and please explain under what circumstances could provide for a station (KP4KE) so consistently stronger at the receiving RBN locations than another station (NP2P) in the same area running 35 times the power. At times the difference is over 10db or more in favor of the "42 watt station.". What I am suggesting is that the evidence of a low power or as he claims "42 watts" on the 3830 Reflector requires some careful and detail investigation. During the CQ 160 Meter SSB contest some differences were even more striking. I made some ground wave comparisons between the signals of Pedro, NP4A and the low power "42 watt" claim of KP4KE. Either the laws of propagation have changed over the years but I don't think they have. On ground wave I can tell the difference between a LP and a HP station 150 miles away on 160 meters. After the contest I even asked some European participants to let me know how the two stations compared, one that claimed to be running low power and the other well engineered and well healed station at NP4A with 200 foot towers that on the low bands can open and close any propagation from here. The remarks were, how can this station claim low power? "Impossible" and on and on.

This has been going on for many years. No other station can even fairly compete in future contests if this ruse goes unchecked. If I am wrong in my assessment, I think then the station owner in question should be scheduled for speaking engagements at numerous DX and contest confabs. Maybe even the Society of Broadcast Engineers would pay huge speaking fees for someone who can support their claims in having new propagation methods that reverse previous settled and proven theories.

Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
St. Croix, U.S, Virgin Islands


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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