[CQ-Contest] Leveling the Geographic Playing Field [was:Why did theCanadians (PT5M) beat the Americans]

[Felipe J Hernandez]

I would do it very easy...
get beach front locations north coast preferable, everyone running verticals 
and 100w..they will have great ears and solid signal to all areas of the 
world that are workable with little QRM.
At the same time that would make it the most similar location with almost 
identical signals.

Felipe
NP4Z
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Radiosporting Fan" <radiosporting at yahoo.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the Geographic Playing Field [was:Why did 
theCanadians (PT5M) beat the Americans]


> Jim makes an interesting point, and that raises a
> question from me (go figure) ...
>
> --- Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
>> Well it is clear that WRTC is not a plain level
>> field  event!
>> <snip>
>> It's just a simple fact that it is impossible to set
>> up 50 equal stations when factors  such as terrain
>> and local noise levels are to be considered.
>
> Even things like local soil conductivity must come
> into play on HF.  So here's my question...
>
> In HF terms, how practical would it be to assemble 50
> teams within a tighter geographic proximity to each
> other to minimize regional differences while not
> causing too much mutual QRM?
>
> On VHF, a good transceiver/transverter combination
> allows me to be within 10-kHz of a Kilowatter on
> 2-meters who is only 5-km away and I don't hear them.
> Not being an HF contester, I wonder how that
> translates?
>
> Ev, W2EV
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>