CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:49:21 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Wed,10/5/2016 3:01 PM, James Cain wrote:
Doing away with power categories would solve this problem. Just list everybody 
in order by score in the contest results and that's that.

Yeah, throw the baby out with the bath water.

Several years ago, I was warned by a top CA contester about the organizers of this contest with their arbitrary rulings and lousy rules (he lost a bunch of Qs, allegedly because other stations blew his exchange). I've never bothered to participate.

As to using RBN for things like this -- there are simply too many variables to establish relative operating power. Among them are antennas, what direction they are pointed, their horizontal AND vertical patterns based on height, band conditions, including QSB, time of day, and so on.

I've used RBN to evaluate MY antennas, but I knew what they were, made a lot of TEST transmissions on both antennas, using a different call for each antenna, QSYing between each, and interleaving calls on one antenna with calls on the other, taking as much data as I could get from the same RX site, putting it in a spreadsheet and plotting DB readings from the same RX station for both antennas, and plotting dB vs distance. Under those controlled conditions, I got quite usable data. Nothing like this could have worked for the RDXC "investigation."

73, Jim K9YC

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

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