[UK-CONTEST] Fwd: 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]

[Gordon Brown]

It seemed to me that this thread was suggesting that some of the higher scorers 
were using more power than they should based on the S/N's reported on RBN.  The 
object of my contribution was to show how figures obtained from RBN can be 
manipulated to prove almost anything.
Personally I can't see what satisfaction anyone gets from cheating but people 
do, as evidenced in athletics with drugs and ball tampering in cricket and who 
knows where else.  Amateur radio is like no other sport, if it is a sport, 
because we are not and never will be playing on a level field.  My dipole runs 
North and South and my mates runs East and West and there's nowt we can do about 
it.

Gordon.




________________________________
From: G3WVG <g3wvg at btinternet.com>
To: Gordon Brown <gordonbrowns at btinternet.com>
Cc: UK contest list <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, 7 January, 2011 1:31:16
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Fwd: 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]

Intersting, but I think the crucial phrase is "all things being equal" and of 
course they rarely are. 

Geography, terrain and antenna type , orientation and height make for a lot of 
variables. Nevertheless the data is very useful. 


73 Ian 

Sent from my mobile


On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:43, Gordon Brown <gordonbrowns at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> According to RBN ZGC was first heard at 2018 and last heard at 2129 - 71 
>minutes
> KNO was first heard at 2000 and last heard at 2055 55 minutes
> ZGC claimed 85 QSOs - that's 1 every 55 secs
> KNO claimed 31 QSOs - that's 1 ever 107 seconds
> So ZGC was twice as fast as KNO
> Can that be explained by the average speed of each of the stations?
> ZGCs average speed was 25 WPM
> KNO average speed was 14 WPM
> So ZGC operated at twice the speed of KNO and made twice the number of QSOs in 

> the same time.
> 
> The difference between KNO running 100W and ZGC running 10W should be 10dB all 

> else being equal but the RBN reports I read are nothing like that difference.
> 
> Now - what about the aerials?
> 
> As my dad said - figures can't lie but liars can figure.
> 
> 73
> Gordon.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
> To: UK contest list <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 January, 2011 16:02:00
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Fwd: 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]
> 
> Clicked wrong button...
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]
> To: g3wvg at btinternet.com
> 
> 
> How cool is that! I never bothered to look at RBN before.
> 
> Out of interest, I sorted the claimed entries by QSO count and picked a few
> to compare with myself at various nodes. What's strking is there isn't a
> massive difference between my signal and some of the leaders. But more
> revealing is that G3ZGC's QRP is indeed consistently weaker than my signal
> and yet he is in 38th place to my 127th! In fact he beats a significant
> number of stations running 100W - well done! OK, I'm no CW op, but this does
> suggest the skill factor is a bigger factor than I had assumed.
> 
> Of course, there isn't really any data from nodes in G-land, so it's
> impossible to see whether some enjoyed better inter-G propagation than
> others - which makes up the meat of the available Q's. I was interested to
> see that I was heard by K3LR near the start of the contest at the same SNR
> as G4FNL, who is currently in 1st place.
> 
> This is all quite encouraging to me because I had assumed it was a
> pipe-dream to think I could get anywhere near the top of the table with my
> station (currently 100W to inverted-vee windom, 30ft apex 10ft ends). A long
> way to go with the skill then... I recall reading something G6XN wrote where
> he reckoned those with beams did better partly because they expected to get
> through to DX, whereas those that didn't gave up too easily.
> 
> 73,
> Andy G4KNO.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Ian Pritchard <g3wvg at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello All
>> 
>> Interesting conditions throughout the 80m CC.  I had expected the band to
>> be pretty poor for inter UK QSOs throughout the contest but for me (in
>> Surrey ) it improved dramatically in the last 45 mins or so.  Today I did a
>> search on the "reverse beacon network comparison tool"  comparing signal
>> strengths of various  high scoring stations (posted on logs received) as
>> received throughout the 90 minutes at various reception points around
>> Europe.  Fascinating stuff.  It would be very interesting to see what
>> antennas everyone was using.  Most of the stations had comparable patterns
>> of signal strengths but  there were some anomalous results. with a very
>> small number of stations exhibiting as much as a 10db advantage over others.
>> 
>> Check it out at    http://www.reversebeacon.net/analysis/
>> 
>> 73 Ian G3WVG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest