[CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Drew Vonada-Smith drew at whisperingwoods.org
Wed Oct 5 12:34:24 EDT 2016

Rich & Contesters,

This is exactly what happened to me in 2015.  I asked the same obvious question; If they worked me and gave an exchange, are they not by definition in the contest?  My affected QSOs were also confirmed.  The issue was not addressed in the response, and there was an attempt to make me feel ashamed or silly for working a station as SN 001.  Sorry, I'm not feeling any shame in that...I am just a smart contester getting every mult he can.

When RDXC got slow, I started working casual QSO party guys on phone and cross swapping exchanges for both contests.  Those contacts were also denied.  Why exactly?  Just another good contesting move, IMHO.

If the meaning is that stations not sending in a log are not counted, then the rules should note that.  Of course, most of us would consider such a rule ridiculous.  I also doubt that many of us agree with a rule that says *we* lose a QSO when the *other* guy busts the exchange.  Yes, they do that; read the rules.  These oddities and others are why you see such ridiculous score reductions in RDXC.  

Comments from the sponsor also seem to imply that policy is set by how the scoring software works, rather than the scoring software is designed based on the rules and policy.  I suspect (but do not know) that this is a factor in how these oddities come about.

I will not operate RDXC while this type of nonsense continues.

Drew K3PA


Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:39:43 -0400
From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Message-ID: <d60918e2-074a-ac84-1f43-c5821e657bda at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

I basically gave up on Russia DX when I had my score knocked down 
because I supposedly worked stations that were "not in the contest".  
Not in the contest?  WTF.

I worked them; LoTW confirms I worked them.  How could they not be in 
the contest?

73 Rich NN3W

On 10/4/2016 9:31 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


Message: 6
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:15:11 -0400
From: "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Alpha 87A Alpha Max
Message-ID: <946d08c6bb8cc2c7ac56317636b0d983.squirrel at www11.qth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Alpha 87A's are pretty inexpensive now. I am not sure how it works without
Alpha Max, I owned one with Alpha Max and it tuned very nicely. My comment
regarding this amp is that they are very expensive to repair if you send
it back to the manufacture so be cautious what you purchase.

John KK9A

To:cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject:[CQ-Contest] Alpha 87A Alpha Max
From:Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to:k9yc at arrl.net
Date:Tue, 4 Oct 2016 13:47:09 -0700


I'm about to buy an Alpha 87A, early production, without the Alpha Max
Firmware. That's the feature that provides auto tuning (as opposed to auto
recall of saved settings, which was how the amp was originally built).

Some questions.

1) How useful is the Alpha Max auto-tune feature?

2) The new owner of Alpha says the upgrade kit is no longer available. Is
there an easy way to add it? That is, are the chips generic? I'm guessing
that at least one of the two chips is an EPROM. Is it practical to buy the
chips and copy the firmware from another 87A?

3) Is it worth going to the trouble? I would use it for my high dipoles
for 80 and 40M.

Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC


Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:30:43 -0400
From: w8fj at aol.com
To: bob.5b4agn at gmail.com, cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Message-ID: <157950a00ce-1f8c-f1b8 at webprd-m65.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I have been following this thread for awhile now.  There certainly appears to be some shady things going on here.  Perhaps there should be an organized effort to boycott next years RDXC event.

John, W8FJ




-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Henderson <bob.5b4agn at gmail.com>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 5, 2016 8:38 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

On 15th September, the day following release of the preliminary results of
RDXC I wrote the following note to the adjudicators:


In your preliminary results P3F entry in RDXC 2016 is listed in the SOAB
Mix category.  This is not correct.  P3F entry was in the SOAB Mix LP
category.  An Elecraft K3 at no greater than 100W output was in use
throughout the event.

Please adjust your results to reflect the correct category of entry for P3F.

Thank you.


No reply has been received until today.  This I interpret to be the follow
up to my Skype discussion with RA3AUU on Monday.  Full text of the note


Dear Bob!
  Your entry in RDXC-2016 was reclassified from LP to HP.
For the decision of reclassifying your entry from LP to HP RDXC
committee evaluated and compared several factors simultaneously:

  Your signal levels and signal levels of other LP and HP stations
(excluding peak values) around you within 500-1000 km radius with
comparable or better antennas than yours on the same time frames of
15-30-60 minutes and at each of 10-15 points of reception.

  Your signal levels together with your and other LP/HP stations calling
behavior while S&P'ing for unique and distant DX/Oblast mults on 160
and 80 m as well as those unique DX/Oblast mults' receiption ability
of other LP and HP stations at the different time frames.

  Your RUNs on 40-80-160 CW and 40 and 80 SSB.

  Based on these analysis we concluded that during different periods of
time you've being using higher power than implies for LP entry.

  The decision is final.

RDXC committee


*Bob, 5B4AGN*
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com


Subject: Digest Footer

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com


End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 166, Issue 12

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list