[CQ-Contest] Assisted or not assisted question (yet again)

w5ov at w5ov.com w5ov at w5ov.com
Thu May 31 12:56:43 PDT 2012


If you enter the contest as assisted, then by all means go ahead and
access the RBN all you like along with all other forms of assistance.

If you're not assisted, then don't be tempted to look at that stuff.

I don't know the answer to your questions about signal levels and so
forth, but I would presume that the likelihood of being heard decreases if
you're QRP. There are also some patterns in what you send that these
devices look for to identify a signal as one calling CQ. If you want to
know more about this stuff, I'm sure one of the RBN experts will point you
in the right direction.


Bob W5OV

> So, during a contest, if I call CQ every so often in an attempt to
> "run", with marginal to N1L results, is it okay to check whether my call
> shows up on the RBN when I'm in a "off" period, R&R, etc.  Or should I
> specify "assisted?"  In the search I "mycall" - no others.  I use the
> info only to confirm or refute my impression of the results I've been
> obtaining from my attempts at "runs."
> Another question, when there's a cacophony of S9+99 signals being heard
> by the Skimmers on the RBN, like in an international DX contest, will a
> pipsquoke signal from my mighty 5 Watts to a cloud warmer antenna be
> harder to be heard by these Skimmers?  In other words, does the "overall
> level of incoming signals" lower the threshold at which a very weak
> signal can be heard?
> After the recent CQWPX was over, I checked for my call, I knew I tried
> calling CQ for as long as 10 minutes repetitively, but was heard only a
> couple times by the RBN skimmers.  Yet, I was working stations from
> various parts of the world - many with no problems hearing me - but >95%
> while I was S&P.
> Just curious.
> 73 de n8xx Hg
> Operated WQ8RP during WPX 2012
> On 5/31/2012 1:47 PM, cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:07:47 -0500
>> From: K0HB<kzerohb at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted or not assisted question (yet again)
>> To: Bob Naumann<W5OV at W5OV.COM>
>> Cc: David Gilbert<xdavid at cis-broadband.com>,
>> 	"<cq-contest at contesting.com>"<cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Message-ID:<178691E3-A081-4B78-B632-B06730F73A7A at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii
>> I was trying (maybe not well) to point out that SCP isn't very different
>> from other assistance except for the quality of immediacy.
>> 73, Hans
>> On May 31, 2012, at 8:44 AM, "Bob Naumann"<W5OV at W5OV.COM>  wrote:
>>> Hans,
>>> I'm afraid you've missed the point.
>>> "Other forms of assistance such as packet" are specifically precluded
>>> by the rules for single ops already.
>>> So, there is no debate about whether packet (and all of the various
>>> forms of spotting networks) should be considered assistance. It already
>>> is.
>>> -Bob
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: K0HB [mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:36 AM
>>> To: Bob Naumann
>>> Cc: David Gilbert;<cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted or not assisted question (yet again)
>>> Bob, every point you make, other than the "real time" issue, could be
>>> made at some level for other forms of assistance such as packet.
>>> (and on slow packet days....)
>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list