>
> Maybe if all logging programs carried that information,
> and Cabrillo accepted it, we could provide comparisons
> of QSOs per CQ and Calls per S&P, and maybe even bonus
> points to those that are most efficient!
>
Wouldn't "efficiency" effectively follow amount of power used and antenna
system?
For example, I expect high power stations with a beam pointed directly at
the dx to work the dx before I do with only 100 watts and a G5RVjr antenna.
But you're right, if you know the antenna system and power of "competing
stations" you could use this type of information, if it was publicly
available, to compare how your operation performs relative to the other
operation. But we already have an indirect comparison by checking the
scores. I'm not sure I agree with bonus points for stations that make
contacts in fewer tries, because that means the biggest "signal" will
usually get the bonus points in a pileup.
What I'd rather see is separate contests for different classes of
operations, on different dates. For example, I'd rather see a contest with
100 watt stations running wire antennas separate from high power stations
running beams, etc. This way the efficiency comparison becomes more
important.
Perhaps it is just my old Yaesu FT890 radio that limits my contesting when
there are high power stations around... When I was working the RTTY
contest, I noticed several "very loud and kill the front end receive of my
radio" stations (nice signal--599, s9+20db :) that prevented me from working
several DX stations that were "nearby" the frequency of the strong signal
stations... for example, I had to wait until about the end of the contest
to put Australia in the log... But I got it with one call when I did try
the last time.
Ed
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|