[CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??

Sat Jul 2 13:47:23 PDT 2011

My understanding is that the NCDXF/IARU beacons were deployed with 
"standard" antennas, the Cushcraft R5 multi-band verticals. Granted, 
looking at some of the photos on the site, there have been some issues 
with durability in some locations.

Since my post, I also found there is software (Faros) available (by 
VE3NEA) that automates the reception of the beacon network. 
http://www.dxatlas.com/faros/

It appears there is decent planning and engineering behind these 
systems... but if you rather reinvent the wheel...  just sayin'...

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/2/2011 3:31 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> The existing transmitting beacons are useless unless they use standard 
> antennas properly oriented at similar site types and they are in 
> useful general locations in the USA.
>
> Reverse beacons with us using antennas we can control would be 
> perfect. We would get an accurate comparison of sources with identical 
> ERP and patterns at many individual receive sites.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" 
> <k0rc at citlink.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not do a test??
>
>
> There has been a beacon system in place for many years.
> http://www.ncdxf.org/beacon/earlyhistory.html  It also adds the feature
> of variable power levels to help determine minimum power needed to
> overcome the path loss.
>
> The reverse beacon network could be used to track the signal strengths
> of these beacons (maybe it already does?).
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 7/2/2011 9:34 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>> Scores are a product of many factors that are entirely the 
>> responsibility of
>> the person controlling the operation. We want to take propagation out 
>> of the
>> equation.
>>
>> The only way to do that is to determine the actual difference between 
>> areas.
>> That clearly cannot be done with scores.
>>
>> There are two steps to solving this problem. First we have to know 
>> how much
>> a path loss change actually affects contacts or scores. Second we 
>> have to
>> know how much the average path loss changes with different locations.
>>
>> I found only one attempt at determining score vs. signal level 
>> (power), but
>> the information processing method was so seriously flawed it is really
>> totally useless. Signal level (or path loss) related to contacts or 
>> scores
>> seems to be an unknown, and may never be solvable because of all the
>> variables.
>>
>> We can quantify path differences pretty easy though.
>>
>> All we need to do is setup a few test beacons using identical very
>> repeatable antennas in different areas with known power and let them run
>> over a period of solar conditions. Then we look at skimmer comparisons.
>> This would establish a typical path loss and opening duration for 
>> different
>> geographical locations.
>>
>> > From that we have a very useful tool.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure there is software around that estimates things like 
>> this,
>> but most likely it is not well verified. This would verify the 
>> software, if
>> working software exists. It would also give us a real basis for any
>> correction or geographical scoring.
>>
>> I'm pretty busy, but I'd be willing to work with a group of people
>> interested in this. It would be something VERY interesting to learn. The
>> equipment and work would be minimal.
>>
>> The very least we would get out of this, even if we could never 
>> translate it
>> to what the real differences in score are, is to put a number on claims
>> certain areas are at an insurmountable disadvantage. For example we 
>> might be
>> able to say with some authority one area has xx% of the opening time 
>> and xx%
>> average signal strength of another area.
>>
>> This really should have been done long before any proposal was made.
>>
>> Doing any correction by score alone is totally useless, unless we 
>> decide we
>> want an overall handicap system and operator skills and station 
>> construction
>> do not matter.
>>
>> For example if K3LR and I set up 100 watt transmitters on automatic 
>> keyers
>> into dipoles and just let them run as often as possible at the same time
>> during contest season, over a period of months we would get a really 
>> good
>> idea exactly what geographic differences are. This would involve very
>> minimal effort and time, and also give me a very good idea how my 
>> station
>> compares to Tim's. Not only would this get the egos out of the 
>> equation, we
>> would then learn when something is obviously wrong with something we are
>> doing.
>>
>> It would give us a baseline for everyone to know how much signal level
>> difference there should be on average between areas.
>>
>> I'm fairly excited at the prospect of doing something that can 
>> benefit all
>> of us!! This could be one of the best QST articles ever, because it 
>> would be
>> the ultimate BS filter on why some people actually have better 
>> results than
>> others. It would stop a lot of negativity.  :-)
>>
>> 73 Tom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>