[CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea
Randy Thompson K5ZD
k5zd at charter.net
Mon Apr 13 18:53:23 EDT 2015
I think we all know "excessive bandwidth" when we hear it. I.e., you can
hear the splatter or clicks for many Khz before you tune on to the signal.
The CQ WW DX Contest issued a number of warnings for poor signal quality for
the 2014 contest. We had the first disqualification for poor signal quality
to a station on CW.
The CQ WW Committee is not omnipotent. We don't spend hours tuning through
the SDR recordings looking for bad signals. We rely on the participants to
report signals that were causing problems on the band (with call sign, time,
frequency, and details). We do follow up on all of these reports.
Not everything reported is objectionable enough to warrant any action. But,
it is important that the contest community speak up about signal quality -
not only to the sponsors but to the offenders as well. High power and wide
signals are one of the biggest threats to our enjoyment and to recruitment
of new contesters into our ranks.
We would be delighted to receive serious proposals for a technical standard
around signal quality. It should be something easily measured using an SDR
recording. Until then, we will continue our function of serving as referees
that call them like we see them.
Randy Thompson, K5ZD
Director - CQ WW DX Contest
email: k5zd at cqww.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Paul O'Kane
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:53 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion
> for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea
> On 13/04/2015 01:54, brett graham wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Will be interesting to see where in the results these filthy signals I
> > recorded end up.
> I suggest that all this talk about excessive bandwidth will remain just
> so much hot air until and unless contest sponsors define what they mean
> by "excessive bandwidth" - with parameters such as maximum width at, say,
> 40db down for both CW and SSB.
> CQWW was the first major contest to introduce an "excessive bandwidth"
> rule, backed up (as claimed) by a worldwide network of SDRs and digital
> - three years ago or so. However, the rules make no attempt to define
> excessive bandwidth, and I'm not aware of any penalties having been
> imposed for this reason alone. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be
> Paul EI5DI
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest