[CQ-Contest] S0 was: Re: QRP

[Pete Smith]

At 10:04 AM 8/11/2006, B. Scott Andersen wrote:
>... there is some
>merit to the idea that working weak signal stations _should_ be worth
>more to the big gun station. We've got computers doing all the log
>checking, cross-checking, and score computations already. It wouldn't
>be difficult to make that change to the programs, it seems to me.
>NOTE: I'm not suggesting we do this to any existing contest! I'm just
>agreeing that it is an interesting idea, whether made in jest or not.
>
>("Jesters do oft prove prophets.", Act V, Scene 3, King Lear -- or,
>for those of us who screwed around in English class like I did,
>the translation is: "Truth is often told in jest.")

Scott's right, but I think the scoring tends to take care of itself.  If you don't work tons of stations who aren't moving the S-meter, you aren't going to do really well.  

As someone else said, you will work QRP stations who are running stacked monobanders from great QTH's, and they will certainly be louder than many 100-watt guys with indoor dipoles.  While I haven't rigorously measured it, I'm convinced that there is at least 70 dB between the loudest stations on the band and the barely audible.  My guess is that the lower end is defined by some 100 watter with an indoor dipole in a basement apartment.  God bless 'em - they separate the winners from the runners-up.

Periodically, someone raises the idea that you needn't work hard for some improvement because "it's only 3 dB" or "it's only an S-unit."  But I think experience indicates that a dB is worth something over 48 hours, and 2 is worth more, and so on.  You may not be able to point to a particular QSO and say "1 dB would have made the difference between working him and not," but the payoff *is* there.

73, Pete N4ZR