[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Tue Oct 4 21:31:35 EDT 2016

The silence from the RDXC folks is deafening.  Not that I ever operated 
it seriously, but unless they come forward and explain their position 
reasonably I think they may find that participation may drop in the future.

On 10/4/2016 4:48 PM, Juan EA5RS wrote:
> Ionospheric skywave signal amplitude or strength is a time-varying random
> variable with a mean and a standard deviation.
>
> Difference between strengths of two signals is also a random variable with
> an even higher standard deviation, even when originated from the same
> location (ever heard of antenna diversity or stacks?), even when originated
> from the same antenna on even very closely spaced frequencies (ever noticed
> selective fading e.g. on 170 Hz FSK ionospheric signals?). Let alone when
> signals originate from different QTHs spaced several kilometers and from
> different antennas.
>
> I am not saying RBN data is not useful or meaningful, but to draw a strong
> conclusion you have to be sure you take into account that variability.
> Based on all variables involved and all possible side-effects, I doubt you
> can assess TX power differences below 10-15 dB with a reasonable degree of
> confidence just based on RBN data.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> 73, Juan EA5RS
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] En nombre de Pete
> Smith N4ZR
> Enviado el: martes, 04 de octubre de 2016 17:16
> Para: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>
> Just filling in one bit of info - the RBN-based "evidence" received from the
> RDXC did not compare signal reports among multiple RBN nodes, which would
> have been meaningless for all the reasons Mike enumerated. They used the
> Signal Analysis Tool, which limits each comparison to a single RBN node.
>
> Even doing same-node comparisons would require knowledge of the dozen-plus
> variables that can affect the reported SNR at any given moment. N2QT
> identified one of the most important and disruptive ones - a much stronger
> calling station in near zero-beat, but there are a variety of others.  Using
> these data to assert that Bob was using high power "for 5 or 10 minutes" now
> and then is simply absurd.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
>
> On 10/2/2016 11:03 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> Using RBN to attempt to prove a power violation alone is absurd.
>>
>> We already know that the antennas are different.   4 Square vs Mono
>> Pole Vertical 80m
>>
>> What feed lines are being used?
>>
>> How old are the feed lines?
>>
>> What quality of feed line is being used?
>>
>> How many radials are being used?
>>
>> Were the coax cabled installed properly?
>>
>> What matching systems are being used?
>>
>> Are there tuners being used at P33W?
>>
>> Could there be other losses at P33W from bandpass filters, harmonic
>> filters, switching, etc.
>>
>> What power was actually being used at P33W?  Is the power limit in
>> Cyprus 400 watts?
>>
>> What are the stations locations to water?  Topography, etc.
>>
>> There could be many other factors that affect why station a is louder
>> than station b in the RBN network.
>>
>>
>> What was the reason for looking at P3F's log to begin with? P3F's
>> score is 4th in HP.  P3F easily wins LP with his score of 12.
>> million.  He beats 9A5Y by 1.5 million points.  However 9A5Y beats
>> IQ3IY by almost 2.5 million points.  Was 9A5Y's logs checked too? P3F
>> had a great score LP.  It also appears that the competition for
>> whatever reason in LP was not as competitive?  It was quite close from
>> 2nd place down.   It would appear that P3F ran much more than 9A5Y who
>> had more multipliers and almost 700 less qsos.
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that P3F was able to amass 500 extra qso's
>> by the accusation of running an amp for 10 minutes here and there.
>>
>>
>> I have no problem with a contest chairman asking an entrant if they
>> might have possibly classified their log incorrectly because mistakes
>> happen.   If contest committees believe that people are cheating then
>> provide the proof and it better be more solid than what we have heard
>> than this and DQ them.  Reclassifying them serves no purpose other
>> than to tell us that you "think" they might have done something.  To
>> me that does not cut it.
>>
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest