On 11/9/2010 2:18 PM, David Cutter wrote:
> The wider use of reverse beacons will accumulate enough statistical data on
> transgressors to dissuade them or disqualify them, there for all to see.
>
First, I'm not a contester and although I chase DX I have neither DXCC,
WAC, or even WAS confirmed.
BUT I am a computer professional with a degree in the field. I worked
with data, laboratory analysis,and statistics enough to know you would
have a difficult, if not impossible time getting sufficient data to make
any valid comparisons based on signal strengths from a given area. On
top of that there are wide variations in signal strengths from stations
only a couple miles apart running comparable power and antennas. Then
antennas as well as their heights also make a tremendous difference
You could get enough difference using signals from an area (Reverse
beacons is a poor term for what's being done) to gain a suspicion, but
only a suspicion that the station is running power. You'd still need to
have some one show up on site *during* the contest operation. Many if
not most legal limit amps (for the US) are capable of running at least
50% over that level. Even having an amp like the Emtron DX-3sp is no
proof that it wasn't used at, or under the legal limit if they are not
"caught in the act"
"At times" and I emphasize the "at times" I have set and listened and
listened some more to pile ups trying to work a station. Then at the
right moment just said "Romeo India" and had the station come right back
and received a good, or great signal report while I head other stations
from within 5 or 6 miles making repeated calls. Yes, I run the legal
limit, but if I pushed the amp for all it's worth , I'd have less than a
2 db *theoretical* advantage. OTOH I've had the reverse happen. I've
done my best trying to pick the timing of the call *repeatedly* while
hearing stations from the local area not only working the DX but hearing
them far better than I was.
In these cases even if there were enough stations for a *valid*
statistical analysis the anomalous band conditions between particular
stations far outweigh the overall statistics for the area in which the
stations are located. The remote, or monitoring station is looking for
anomalous signals, but Mother Nature can provide than as easily as a
station running power. On top of that a station would have to be running
considerable power (like the one using a 3 to 4 KW *driver). Some one
running 2500 watts is highly unlikely to be distinguishable in signal
strength from some one running 1500 watts.
In these cases the stats would likely point out the station that stood
out as being suspicious and that's all it would show., It would be proof
of nothing. You would have to have referee, or monitoring stations
available to visit said station (In PERSON) on short notice. In a
"world wide" contest this would be unlikely for the overall area, but
could be done for areas of suspected suspicion from previous contests.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> David
> G3UNA
>
>
>
>> Well, I know it was done here when the station beat the YCCC's chosen
>> winner. Suddenly 3 of the members decided to visit and check things out
>> back
>> in 87.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|