Topband: DX Window-Redux

[Tom W8JI]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herb Schoenbohm" <herbs at vitelcom.net>
To: <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: DX Window-Redux


> On 12/6/2012 5:23 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>"There isn't any competition in any area can be all things to all people, 
>nor can it be completely fair to everyone everywhere."

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 4:59 PM
>>TBDC comes very close to being just that.  You get credit for distances 
>>and a nice boost for not being a QRO alligator.  I think that this is 
>>steadily gaining in popularity over the years as it should.

There is a person down here always complaining about contest life being 
unfair, and wanting distance based multipliers in other contests. He wanted 
support for that idea.

When I objectively looked into the notion distance based scoring would level 
or nearly level the playing field, it was not even close to true. Stations 
from Minnesota or the Dakotas, for example, are closer to Europe than I am, 
yet I have a much easier time working them. This is because of path 
attenuation and unreliability of paths closer to the magnetic poles.

Also, signals suffer exaggerated attenuation with each additional hop. 
Signal attenuation is not linear with distance, because of the way the 
signal propagates.

The end result of distance based scoring or score by distance, power, and 
number of QSO's is certainly very different, but it is far from level. It 
simply tilts things in a different way.

For example, a very large transmitting antenna low-power station in a 
one-hop location to very large numbers of stations can totally dominate the 
contest, while a person with modest transmitting antennas at a location 
requiring multi-hop or refractive or skirting paths through high attenuation 
areas will suffer.

It winds up effectively being a "northern polar path" or "southern polar 
path", and unpopulated one-hop radial area penalty.

People running low power in the middle of populated areas have a distinct 
advantage, because signal levels do not decrease linearly with increased 
distance and because not all paths are equal. Not only that, large 
transmitting antennas in populated areas will still win.

I understand the frustration Herb, but the ARRL obviously never intended the 
ARRL 160 to be anything like a WW DX contest. It is very different from CQ 
WW contests, and more along SS and other USA centered contests. That's why 
large stations from the Midwest do so well, and why DX activity is generally 
low.

73 Tom