Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 1 or 2 dB

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 1 or 2 dB
From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 10:43:09 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
My test worked, so I'll try again...

To everyone that has commented: Thank you very much! This discussion is fabulous!

I concede the point that statistically, there is likely to be score improvements with 1 dB power increase and certainly 2 dB. These are best described as statistical improvements and I suspect that the data set has to be moderately large to detect a "significant" difference, that is for a statistic to have much power. Thus a DXer, who is not a contester (there are such things) probably won't notice a significant improvement in how long it takes to break through a pile-up with a power increase of 1 dB. Over a long run, a contester will be able to see a score increase at with a 1 dB power increase.  A smaller data set (possibly much smaller) will show statistical score improvements given a 2 dB increase, significant at some arbitrary p-value.

I tend to skepticism when someone says they can notice a significant improvement given a *single* contest assuming everything else (including the operator) is held constant. It will take several contests to see a *statistical* improvement but I'll now bet it's there. Fewer contests will be required for a 2 dB increase. I prefer resampling (i.e. a permutation test) to parametric statistics simply because parametric test assumptions are almost always violated, leading to unknown degradations of the test's validity.

Dave's response is precisely what I would expect to see. I became aware of diversity reception early in my ham radio experiences and that it could lead to huge effective signal increases (10 - 20 dB) but it's not trivial for a typical ham installation. I heard about it as it related to multiplexed encrypted RTTY military applications.

I've always assumed that propagation was king: without favorable propagation, we're sunk. I re-read the section on fading in Ken Davies's book "Ionospheric Radio"  (I knew him when I worked in Boulder and he gave me an autographed copy) about the mechanisms of fading -- I don't recall Jim Lux's notes about ionospheric "lumpiness," but it makes *perfect* sense, and it's right there in black and white in Davies's book as well. .

A personal historical note: when my dad (W5JHJ) worked in as an engineering physicist, he developed an instrument to fly on the KH-8 surveillance satellites that would help us determine the vehicle's orientation. The KH-8 orbited pretty low (80-200 mi) and so was in the ionosphere. Of course, I was only a kid (elementary school) at the time, what he did was Classified, and he only told me the whole story when he was long-since retired and the program was mostly declassified. His instrument used the acronym "AIM" (I never knew what that acronym stood for) and was later called a VVSA -- velocity vector sensor assembly. It measured ion current through two perpendicular ports and, based on the difference of the currents, determined the direction of the "wind." At the time, it was a challenge to know exactly how it was oriented, so the idea was to sense the ionospheric "wind." The AIM did that quite well but they found strange anomalies indicating that in places the ionosphere had very high velocity winds, on the order of the orbital speed of the KH-8, which rendered the AIM useless for its intended purpose. They had f made unintentional direct measurements of ionospheric winds; this was all sometime in the 1960s. These currents were hypothesized by Kristian Birkeland and then detected by him based on magnetic anomalies, all in the early 20th century. Of course, none of what my dad was part of was ever published because it was all classified. By the time that veil had lifted, we had radar measurements of the these currents and so what my dad was inadvertently part of finding was never written up for any publication.

Kim N5OP

On 5/18/2022 7:53 PM, Dave Sublette wrote:
I've hesitated to chime in here because I thought the problem was being
discussed very well and perhaps I don't have anything to add.  But I do.

>From December 1983 to April 1989 I operated 160 through 6 meters from
Kwajalein, Marshall Islands.  The pileups were big and were there every
time I pressed a key or opened a mic.  I made 83,000 QSOs, filled 19
logbooks. There were no home computers for me at that time.

One night things were a bit slow on the bands and I had three stations in
San Diego on 20 meters to keep me company.  All were running comparable
stations.  KW and tribanders at 70 feet.  They all lived within a couple of
miles of each other.  So I proposed an experiment.  I had them each say a
sentence in turn, perhaps no more than 6 seconds.  And keep it going
around, one sentence after another.  I watched my S-meter.  At any
given moment, one of them would be 10 to 20 dB stronger than the other
two.  And it was a different station each time.  We did this for maybe ten
minutes and the results were as I have described.

I learned some things from this that I wish I had known while chasing DX
from the States before I went to Kwaj.  Primarily, propagation is king.  No
amount of power will guarantee your signal to be highest at all times.  I
came to think of propagation as a searchlight, constantly scanning.
Whichever station is shined on at the moment would be the one that got
through the pileup. Had I realized this, my anxiety level about working the
DX over the years would have been much lower. Sooner or later, it will be
your turn.

The second thing that occurred to me is that there is no substitute for
crisp operating technique.  Call only when the DX is listening. Hear the DX
station before you call.

In any pileup I could hear at least five levels of signals, even when
everyone one was transmitting at the same time.

Based on all of the above, I would tend to disregard any worry over one or
to dB.

But, as was pointed out, over the long haul in a contest it evidently makes
a difference.

There are two other circumstances where 1 or 2 dB makes a difference.  EME
communications.  We don't strive for that last tenth of a dB noise figure
for no good reason.

The other circumstance in my mind would be digital modes on a "dead" band.
It could make a difference of whether or not the report was decoded.

Just my two cents worth.  I have enjoyed the discussion.

73,

Dave, K4TO
/
/
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>