[CQ-Contest] NA Sprint SSB Activity?

[Hank Greeb]

Shucky durn, I never cease to be amazed at what I can do with my "mighty 
5 watts" to an antenna "Proven to be a few dB better than a dummy load 
buried 6' underground."   This antenna is 28 to 40 feet high at the 
center, a 130 feet dipole, configured as an inverted V, with ends about 
10 feet from the ground.   It's on "average terrain" fairly level for a 
mile in all directions.  Base elevation is 817 feet above mean sea 
level.   Empirically and anecdotally, I note that when I take the 
trouble to elevate the center of the antenna to 40 feet, I seem to get 
better results than at 28 feet.

And, when I get to a higher location - which can be as high as 1050 feet 
(in the highest "knob" in the county), or even 920 feet (an elevation at 
which I found myself during the Michigan QSO party in 2014) I note 
considerably better propagation with a very similar antenna and power.   
So, as you say, height does matter.  I'm sure if I'd find myself at a 
location high in elevation above mean sea level with a contest grade 
antenna farm, I'd do even better.

Operating from here in Michigan, at 43 degrees north, is considerably 
different from my location in SW OH for some 45 years at 39 degrees north.

All of the above are anecdotal observations, I admit, but quite 
surprising to me

it seems very difficult to "level the playing field."  Even the WRTC 
2014 contest planners found differences in antenna performance from site 
to site, and the luck of the draw affected the outcome of that contest 
to some extent.  I don't fully understand the mathematical analyses done 
for each operating site, but differences of 1.5 dB or more in some 
directions between the sites, were reported, particularly toward 
Europe.  Did this present a challenge to those with the lower 
performance, or provide a "boost" for those with a higher scores?   Even 
I noted differences here, on 40 and 80 meters, where antenna orientation 
should not have had much effect, some of the 1x1's were LOUD on these 
bands, and others were only moderately loud..

It "probably" would be a good idea to have a "Tri-bander/Wires" category 
for the ARRL contests, similar to what the CQ contests have.  It would 
give an illusion of a "more level playing field" but there are many 
other variables to confound the situation.   Things like "Height above 
Mean sea level" and "Height above average terrain" both affect 
performance.  Maybe, asking everyone to call CQ at appointed times (not 
all at once, but on a randomized basis) and analyzing the results from 
the Reverse beacon network to get an idea of the effectiveness each 
contestant's station could be a basis for a multiplier or divider of the 
total score?

Such an analysis would seem "way too far out." - and too esoteric in 
practice.

Perhaps we contest ops should stop being myopic, fixated on our small 
(and seemingly shrinking) sub culture?  Perhaps we could spread out 
amongst the general ham population, proselytize the masses  and build 
support in the next generation?  Could this happen?  Or, are we all a 
bunch of olde fogeys who will do nothing except die off in the next 20 
to 30 years?  I talk up contesting at any chance I get at local radio 
club meetings, at hamfests, etc. Only a small number of "suckers" errr, 
newbies are attracted, so maybe my approach is not working.  Ideas on 
how to solicit more newbies?

72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time

On 9/17/2014 12:00 PM, Ken Low <kenke3x at gmail.com> wrote:
> After every contest in which a relatively large number of "casual" operators are worked, I receive many QSL cards which state the antenna is a "wire antenna in the attic," multiband vertical, or other marginal antenna.