[CQ-Contest] QRP cheating

[XV4Y (Yan)]

Hi,

Just my 2 cents to the discussion.

73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/

> Le 18 mai 2015 à 19:59, cq-contest-request at contesting.com a écrit :
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:24:50 -0500
> From: <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs at vitelcom.net>
> Cc: "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QRP cheating
> 
> But even ground-wave signals can be subject to reflections and attenuations and cancellations and additions such that it's not completely outside the bounds of reality, given the different path lengths between Christiansted and Aguadilla and between Christiansted and Ponce. 

Yes, we need more than just "radiated power" to have a QSO.
Even though, perhaps KP4KE's bazooka does not show 25dB gain, but NP4A can have a 25dB loss!
Unfortunately it's easier to make a lossy antenna than a good one, particularly on the low bands were ground losses can be high.

> Given your own observations, and given the probability of recreating the conditions that led to your observations, perhaps yours is the best station to be the receiving station? Wouldn't you relish the chance to be proven right, even if it comes with the chance of being proven wrong? Would you be willing to suspend disbelief long enough to have an open mind?
To really invalidate KP4PE's performance, you'll need to :
- make the comparison to a larger sample of similar stations (10?), not just NP4A,
- do the measuring from a larger sample of receiving stations (10?), not just KV4FZ.

With 100 measure points you will have some conclusions to draw. It's impossible to do it only with 1 comparison.
Also, you'd have to do it at several times to minimize the role of changing propagation.
> 
> Anything less than a trustworthy experiment is just speculation.
>