The reason local contacts on the low bands are easy us because of the ground
wave propagation. That is, signals travel quite far before bouncing off the
ionosphere. So if the ground wave propagation zone is, for example, 250 miles,
the 1-point zone should be 250 miles.
Conversely, on the upper bands, radio waves don't travel very far before they
bounce off the ionosphere. This is why you can't work stations on 10m that are
100 miles away. So, if the skip zone is, for example 200 miles, the 3-point
zone should be 200 miles.
For comparison, one grid square is approximately 70 X 100 miles in the USA. So
if the ground wave and skip zone distances are greater than 1 grid square the
proposed scoring model needs some tweaking.
IMHO, if you want to stay with points based on distance, it may be easier to
simply calculate the distance between the two stations and convert it into
tiers based on the band. For example, under the assumption that ground wave
propagation distance is 250 miles on 160 and 80 m, the 160 and 80 m points
could be as follows:
1) For contacts under 250 miles: 1 point
2) For contacts between 250 and 1000 miles: 2 points
3) For contacts over 1000 miles: 3 points
The 2 and 3 point zones really should be related to the number of hops. That
is, 2 points for the first hop and 3 points for more than one hop.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Joe <nss@mwt.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry Rudy, I do not understand what you are telling me or asking me.
>
> Joe WB9SBD
> <CLEAN-IDLE-TYME-LOGO-120x96.jpg>
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>> On 7/24/2016 9:06 PM, Rudy Bakalov wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> How does one grid square compare to the skip zone and ground wave distance
>> on the upper and lower bands respectively? That is, you may need more than
>> one square to define the 3 points on the upper bands and more than one
>> square to define the 1 points on the lower bands.
>>
>> Rudy N2WQ
>>
>> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
>> autocorrect.
>>
>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Joe <nss@mwt.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was almost a year ago, we all were discussing this distance based
>>>> scoring. ( November of 2015 ) And many brought up that it has pitfalls
>>>> also because of propagation etc.
>>>>
>>>> I back then proposed a contest that is based also on distance, but also on
>>>> the level of difficulty it takes to make a QSO of "X" distance on a
>>>> certain band. I posted it, and If I remember correctly not a single
>>>> comment was made, GOOD OR BAD, it as just as if I never made the posting
>>>> at all. So, lets try it again, What does anyone think of this layout for
>>>> an as flat as possible level playing field contest?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Multipliers are maidenhead grid squares, IE: EN43
>>>>
>>>> Mults are good for each band to encourage the use of every band. IE: you
>>>> get a mult for each square on each band.
>>>>
>>>> QSO Points, more or less the value is determined by the level of
>>>> difficulty in the average qso.
>>>>
>>>> ON 160, 80, & 40,
>>>> 1 point for each qso in your own grid square
>>>> 2 points for each qso not in your own grid square but in a square that
>>>> touches your own grid square.
>>>> 3 points for all other squares
>>>>
>>>> ON 20, 15 & 10,
>>>> 3 points for each qso in your own grid square
>>>> 2 points for each qso not in your own grid square but in a square that
>>>> touches your own grid square.
>>>> 1 point for all other squares
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? The QSO points are generated by the difficulty. Like making a
>>>> QSO on 15 with your own square is tough unless you have a ground wave
>>>> friend. or strong backscatter. So it should be valued more points than a
>>>> QSO on 15 5000 miles away.
>>>>
>>>> Joe WB9SBD
>>>> Sig
>>>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
>>>> Idle Tyme
>>>> Idle-Tyme.com
>>>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>>>> On 7/24/2016 3:37 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
>>>> There are different areas were a station can be competitive in Sweepstakes
>>>> but certainly not all areas. Do you think it was fair when you lived in
>>>> Chicago? The west coast has more daylight hours, which are a high band
>>>> advantage and the contest ends at a more reasonable time there for those
>>>> that work on Monday. You can see the pattern if you look at the list of HP
>>>> phone winners over the last 20 years. 1995 N5RZ, 1996 N7TR, 1997 WP2Z,
>>>> 1998-2007 WP3R, 2008 W7WA, 2009 KH7XS, 2010 VY2ZM, 2011 N9RV/7, 2012-2013
>>>> VY2ZM, 2014-2015 W7WA.
>>>>
>>>> There really is no fair contest so just have fun and operate!
>>>>
>>>> John KK9A
>>>>
>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW madness
>>>> From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
>>>> Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
>>>> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:13:35 -0700
>>>> List-post:
>>>> <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>> On Sat,7/23/2016 5:50 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
>>>> Why are we beating up the CQWW contest? SS and NAQP are not fair either.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, SS and NAQP are relatively competitive between different parts of
>>>> NA. In SS, PVRC, SMC, and NCCC have each turned in wins in Large Club
>>>> competitons, and another half dozen or so smaller clubs have done will the
>>>> Medium and Small club competions. Indeed, it's been largely a matter of
>>>> motivation of members as to which club wins any given year.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, top NAQP and NA Sprint scores are spread around, and there's
>>>> quite
>>>> healthy competition between teams. NCCC teams often place well in both
>>>> contests, even beating "ad hoc" teams of top operators all over NA.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the most unfair element of SS is the number of geographically small
>>>> sections with relatively little ham activity, most of them located where
>>>> they're easy to work on 80/75 from W1/2/3. I'm thinking of the four new VE3
>>>> sections, RI, and MAR sections. The only section comparable out west is SF;
>>>> things are better there since K6SRZ moved from Berkeley (EB) to wine
>>>> country
>>>> (part of the SF section) when he retired several years ago.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|