[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Drew Vonada-Smith drew at whisperingwoods.org
Wed Oct 5 12:22:32 EDT 2016

Of course, the sponsor is not required to reply here.  I believe the comment was meant to state that they have not replied satisfactorily to anyone, anywhere.  They have not answered much from Bob's direct email, per Bob.  I also wrote them directly with no reply.  And of course, this is a rather major and relevant forum.  This is all consistent with my past personal experience.  When an answer is received, it consist of nothing except restating a conclusion.  No refuting of facts, no clarification, no justification.  I made no big public outcry at the time because the issue seemed limited to me and some log details specific to me.  This feels like a bigger issue.

Of course this is entertainment.  The group is discussing its interest in this entertainment based on its perceived quality and the sponsor's interest in supporting the views of participants.  That is valid.

And while the sponsor can run the contest as they like, and we can join or boycott as we like, using the contest as a result for something like WRTC implies a level of "meta use" consistent with "meta supervision", outside RDXC, on how it is run.  We are due an explanation all the more, and if not forthcoming, it is reasonable for us to ask for discontinuation of the "meta use".

I am trying very hard to make the cut for WRTC2016, and working every qualifying contest I can.  But after what I experienced in RDXC 2015, this is the one contest I purposely passed on in 2016.  I will continue to avoid it.

Drew K3PA


Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:30:46 -0000
From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd at charter.net>
To: "'W0MU Mike Fatchett'" <w0mu at w0mu.com>,
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Message-ID: <003401d21f15$0f90d550$2eb27ff0$@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"

Perhaps you may get more response if you post on the Russian contest
reflector (it is quite active).  Or better yet, write to the RDXC Committee

Contest sponsors are not obligated to monitor all reflectors and answer
every question that comes up.

Contesting is entertainment.  Everyone has the option to select which events
they participate in.  I know contest sponsors tend to pay more attention to
their participants than to those who do not.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> W0MU Mike Fatchett
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:32 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list