Hello Jerr:
Brobbo! It's about time we bring some sanity and facts to this thread.
Yes, let's congratulate these guys and learn from their success.
Bob WA3EUL
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 K1ZM@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Gang
>
> I have been reading the IG9 story and offer the following
> comments/experiences/observations.
>
> Whenever a given contest operation seems beyond belief or head and shoulders
> above other scores, it is far too easy to simply jump to conclusions.
> Imaginations run WILD and allegations (usually unsupported) cast doubts as
> to excessive power, cheating, use of packet spotting - whatever!
>
> There is nothing more UNFAIR than to prejudge an operation based on heresay
> absent the facts of the matter.
>
> For now, we should be CONGRATULATING these guys on a superb performance and
> trying to learn from their efforts. And you can be sure the CQWW Committee
> will take a hard but fair and objective look at this operation before the
> final CQ pages are typeset!
>
> Having been around this band a few years (it seems like AGES) and having
> operated from NP4A on 160M numerous times, I can offer a few related
> experiences that may be helpful to some of the newer guys:
>
> 1) On 160M, electron absorption efficiency is HIGHER than on any of our other
> amateur bands. This phenomenon also means that signals more toward the
> equator are going to be far less affected by polar absorption than signals
> emanating from origins even as close as 500 miles Northward.
>
> 2) Salt water plays another major role. On Cape Cod, my signals are AT LEAST
> 10 DB louder in Europe than they are with similar antennas 180 miles to the
> West in Eastern New York.
>
> 3) Low band prop was abysmal during CQWW which would exacerbate these factors
> even more. It is indeed possible it would make signals from what is
> essentially North Africa stand out by what seemed like huge margins to those
> listening.
>
> 4) At NP4A, I often found I could work deep Russians and Asians as far East
> as 9M2, with relative ease - while this was virtually impossible from New
> York just 1500 miles to the North. While NY was closer to these points, the
> distance was not the issue - the effect of less polar absorption was the key
> - and when you look at where these guys were, plus add in the effects of
> totally PUNK condx, it is vy easy to see what probably happened.
>
> 5) The boys have noted they videotaped much of the operation. This may help
> to set matters to rest. As Warner Wolf is accustomed to saying, "Let's go to
> the videotape!!!" BEFORE we cast stones!
>
> 6) Last year in CQWW SSB I singlebanded 160M for a new USA record. On
> Saturday afternoon at 4PM local (2000z) I awoke from a nap and turned on my
> FT-1000. To my amazement at 1840Khz, here was IG9W (last year's call) at
> about S7 on an otherwise completely dead band! At the time I made a note of
> it, figured out where they were located and realized immediately based upon
> my experience what was going on.
>
> The moral of the story is quite simply this and the following axioms seem to
> prove incontrovertible year after year:
>
> On 160M South is best. USA East Coast is a damn sight better than the black
> hole. The USA LEFT COAST is for those with the patience of JOB. And those
> poor souls who inhabit the FAR NORTH regions of the world all deserve our
> prayers each night before we go to bed!
>
> I suggest we stop berating these guys on these pages and congratulate them on
> a superlative effort - until irrefutable facts are presented otherwise!
>
> Good show guys! Thanks for showing us what can be done by a good team in a
> great location with good antennas!
>
> 73 Jeff K1ZM
>
> K1ZM@aol.com
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
> Submissions: topband@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|