CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Excessive Bandwidth

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Excessive Bandwidth
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:53:48 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

The thing is, none of that is needed. It should be possible to write a software application that scans the entire SDR recording and quantifies the energy density in the frequency domain of a CW signal (it would be considerably more difficult for SSB) since the trash would still be time sync'd to the fundamental. The sponsor could, for example, rule that XX% of the energy must fall within a 200 Hz window or be flagged for a "wide" signal. No particular need for any participant to report anyone ... just let the software do it.

I've suggested something like this off and on for the last couple of years and to be honest I'm surprised somebody hasn't tried to do it. Maybe it would be more difficult than I think ...

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 11/4/2013 7:06 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:

The CQWW sponsors are leading the way in defining and,
hopefully, clamping down on unsportsmanlike conduct.

They say " "Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include.....
5. Signals with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks)"

Anyone who uses SDR-based panadaptors, including the Elecraft
P3, can recognise and measure wide signals instantly - by just
looking at them.

It seems to me that if we had an agreed method of reporting
excessive bandwidth, contest sponsors could confirm it for
themselves by checking their SDR recordings - using times
and frequencies from our Cabrillo logs.

The question arises, how would each of us indicate wide
signals from other stations we work - not to mention the
ones we might prefer not to work.

The ones we work are easy.  My suggestion is to add /Q to
the callsign logged.  I'm using Q, because it cannot be
confused with another country's callsign - no calls begin
with Q.  There may be implications for dupe-checking with
some software, but nothing that can't be supported with a
few extra lines of code.

There are other options, but I would not consider varying
the usual 59(9) reports because it would take longer.

73,
Paul EI5DI
















_______________________________________________
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

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