Hi,
Just my 2 cents to the discussion.
73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/
> Le 18 mai 2015 à 19:59, cq-contest-request@contesting.com a écrit :
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:24:50 -0500
> From: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
> To: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
> Cc: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QRP cheating
>
> But even ground-wave signals can be subject to reflections and attenuations
> and cancellations and additions such that it's not completely outside the
> bounds of reality, given the different path lengths between Christiansted and
> Aguadilla and between Christiansted and Ponce.
Yes, we need more than just "radiated power" to have a QSO.
Even though, perhaps KP4KE's bazooka does not show 25dB gain, but NP4A can have
a 25dB loss!
Unfortunately it's easier to make a lossy antenna than a good one, particularly
on the low bands were ground losses can be high.
> Given your own observations, and given the probability of recreating the
> conditions that led to your observations, perhaps yours is the best station
> to be the receiving station? Wouldn't you relish the chance to be proven
> right, even if it comes with the chance of being proven wrong? Would you be
> willing to suspend disbelief long enough to have an open mind?
To really invalidate KP4PE's performance, you'll need to :
- make the comparison to a larger sample of similar stations (10?), not just
NP4A,
- do the measuring from a larger sample of receiving stations (10?), not just
KV4FZ.
With 100 measure points you will have some conclusions to draw. It's impossible
to do it only with 1 comparison.
Also, you'd have to do it at several times to minimize the role of changing
propagation.
>
> Anything less than a trustworthy experiment is just speculation.
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|