[CQ-Contest] Radio Laws of Propagation....Have they been re-invented?

Ron Notarius W3WN wn3vaw at verizon.net
Wed Feb 26 21:25:01 EST 2014

Without weighing in on the merits, for or against, Herb's concern, I would
like to point out one thing:

The posts to the 3830 Reflector are voluntary and not official.

Only the information entered in the submitted log is official.

Someone can claim 5 Watts, 50 Watts, 50,000, 500,000 Watts on 3830.  It
means nothing.  If someone, and I'm not saying that this is the case here,
wants to get a rise out of those watching the 3830 Reflector posts...
something like this would be one way to do it.

With that said...

I worked the station in question several times during the contest.  His
report to me was NOT 42.  (I'm sure those who worked him noticed the same
thing, subsequent to this post)  So... one must wonder what's going on.

But wondering is one thing.  What counts, again, is the power level on the
submitted log.  And only the ARRL Contest log checkers will know that... for

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Herb Schoenbohm
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:46 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Radio Laws of Propagation....Have they been

This is my first post on this reflector and I do so with caution but 
extreme concern that contests at least stay somewhat competitive in all 
categories.  I must admit in 50 years of enjoying contests I have never 
quite seen anything like this and it is repeated year after year.  I 
don't want to make false accusations but some station claiming to be QRP 
"3.7 watts in the past or in this case "42 watts" as published on the 
3830 Reflector recently, are claims so far beyond credulity that careful 
examination is warranted by their claim.

Why am I concerned?.....  Each year contest visitors come to this part 
of the world to operate, some just for fun, but others the spend 
significant money to build fine contest stations. There efforts, their 
country multipliers  are appreciated. Their efforts are as they should 
be, duly lauded.  However what is troublesome is those who come all they 
way to the Caribbean and try to compete but have their efforts ruined by 
others who should get the Contest Committee Pinocchio award, rather than 
a beautiful plaque.  My reference is for a particular station for 
claiming to be QRP in the past with 3.7 watts and running the tables or 
in this case "42 watts" as was the case with one entry in the ARRL CW 
contest this month with a nearby SOAB LP category.  My contest station 
NP2P is a an adequate contest station with good antennas from near the 
ocean and runs 1500 output to an Alpha 87A.  Of interest is the 
comparison during the ARRL CW contest of SOAB-HP of NP2P and the SOAB-LP 
of KP4KE who made the claim on the 3830 Reflector that his power was 
only 42 watts.  Rather then make some wild accusation I sincerely ask to 
look at the RBN signal levels for both stations at the same time on the 
same band. If you can believe him I would like to talk to about buying 
shares in my new St. Thomas to St. Croix bridge project.  Here is the 

Just go to RBN and put in a spot analysis at any location on the 
mainland for the ARRL DX CW this month.   Pick any reporting station 
like W3LPL or AA4VV or WA7LNW and compare, for Saturday February 15, 
2014, the signal levels of KP4KE (42 watts) and NP2P (1.5KW) especially 
on the low bands. Antennas on the low band are essentially the same. 
KP4KE claims (3830 report) that has a dipole at 60' on 80 and so does 
NP2P. (NP2P is 65 feet ABG.  He claims on 40 meters a delta loop at 70' 
and NP2P has a dipole at 65 feet.  Now do you know how his claim of 42 
watts to these antennas can outperform similar antennas into the 
mainland locations against a station that is running (NP2P) 1500 watts? 
Look at the low band analysis and please explain under what 
circumstances could provide for a station (KP4KE) so consistently 
stronger at the receiving RBN locations than another station (NP2P) in 
the same area running 35 times the power. At times the difference is 
over 10db or more in favor of the "42 watt station.".  What I am 
suggesting is that the evidence of a low power or as he claims "42 
watts" on the 3830 Reflector requires some careful and detail 
investigation. During the CQ 160 Meter SSB contest some differences were 
even more striking. I made some ground wave comparisons between the 
signals of Pedro, NP4A and the low power "42 watt" claim of KP4KE.  
Either the laws of propagation have changed over the years but I don't 
think they have. On ground wave I can tell the difference between a LP 
and a HP station 150 miles away on 160 meters. After the contest I even 
asked some European participants to let me know  how the two stations 
compared, one that claimed to be running low power and the other well 
engineered and well healed station at NP4A with 200 foot towers that on 
the low bands can open and close any propagation from here.  The remarks 
were, how can this station claim low power? "Impossible"  and on and on.

This has been going on for many years. No other station can even fairly 
compete in future contests if this ruse goes unchecked. If I am wrong in 
my assessment, I think then the station owner in question should be 
scheduled for speaking engagements at numerous DX and contest confabs.  
Maybe even the Society of Broadcast Engineers would pay huge speaking 
fees for someone who can support their claims in having new propagation 
methods that reverse previous settled and proven theories.

Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
St. Croix, U.S, Virgin Islands

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list