On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:35:04PM +0100, Bill Tippett wrote:
> K4OJ:
> >In a low power environment nobody can argue successfully with me that CW
> isn't a better node!
>
> This is also true on the low bands. Proof - compare alltime
> SOSB records for CW vs SSB on 160-40 in the CQ WW records here:
While I will not dispute that CW does better in getting
through the noise on these bands - I think that more of the
score diffrences can be attributed to these problems:
- Lack of ssb frequency alignment on the low bands.
This forces the use of split frequency operation.
- Very limited frequency ranges in some countries.
There is not very much bandwidth to jam the
SSB signals into.
>
> http://www.cqww.com/intro.htm
>
> CW and SSB weekends use identical rules and are held at similar times of
> year, and CW scores vastly exceed SSB scores in most categories. Here
> are 160M comparisons used in our RM-10352 Petition for mode segmentation.
>
160m is the worst for all of the above reasons.
>
> Average all-time CQ WW record scores (SOSB160), CW versus SSB:
>
> Area/Category: % CW score exceeds SSB
> Africa -67
> Asia +2
> Europe +133
> N. America +65
> Oceania +52
> S. America +152
> USA +157
>
> AVERAGE MARGIN: +71%
>
> In the extreme conditions on the low bands, CW rules!
Ditto.
Dont you think the 160 scores might have more to do
with limited band allocations and in some cases no
band allocations on 160 than they
have to do with other factors?
How do QSO totals in the 160m SSB contest compair to the
QSO totals in the CQ 160 CW contest?
(I dont know.)
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
|