[CQ-Contest] Antw: Re: ARRL fieldday reports at RBN (reversed beacon network)

[M. WIJK]

To support Peter's statement on s/n differences due to different antennas to the receiver and local noise, I can add the following:

Local background noise can matter, a lot.


A friend of mine recently build his NCDXF HF beacon Monitoring receiver system at his QRL site.
During the first few weeks of operation we noted a large difference in s/n receiving peformance between his site (antenna between low buildings in the open country) vs my location ( tiny back garden in a city). His omni receiving antenna is slightly different from mine. The other difference is that my city location is severely hampered by a lot of local background noise.

See at below weblinks what these two variables (RX antenne differences and local noise) already offer large differences in s/n:

http://monitorstation.ccms-best.nl/
http://pa5mw.com/


73 Mark, PA5MW




Op 06/23/13, Peter Voelpel  <dj7ww at t-online.de> schreef:
> Ulli I don´t agree.
> The figures can not be compared as useful they are.
> The main factor for signal to noise is the local noise picked up by the
> different antennas connected to the skimmers and the qrm noise on the
> frequency at the time of recording.
> 
> 73
> Peter
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]> On Behalf Of
> Ulli Grunow
> 
> After the contest you can check the signal to noise ratio the various
> automatically operating CW skimmer receivers report. As everybody is using
> identical software and many even using same hardware (the great QS1R
> receiver by Phil Covington), the figures reported can be compared. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
>