From: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
> Hi All,
> I disagree. The unrealistic power multipliers and lumping of all
> stations together gives a big advantage to low power stations with
> huge antennas.
To the contrary, it balances the scoring such that ALL scores can be
compared in a single listing. The "huge" antenna systems are available no
matter which power level the operator chooses to compete in. The best
installed 4-squares provide ONLY 4-5 dB of gain. The multiple element end
fire arrays can be coaxed to deliver 6-7 dB of gain. There is nothing
UNrealistic about a x2 multiplier for a 11+ dB reduction in TX power and
certainly not a x4 multiplier for a 24+ dB reduction in TX power. In fact,
the multipliers should be even greater to truly make the TX power classes
even.
> To prove this, I only operated a couple hours with ten watts. My
> score (I didn't submit it) was over half what it was operating the
> entire contest the year before on high power. My only DX was
> VK6HD. I certainly had European openings, but running ten watts no one
> heard me. 4X4NJ and others had good signals, but couldn't hear
> my ten watts.
I submit that the conditions to EU were not equal to the western direction
(from USA) propagation that allowed a totally different group of stations to
post top scores in this years running. As noted in my previous post, Larry
at N7DD is a comparable operator, our stations are comparable, and our
locations are a bit over 100 miles apart. With equivalent propagation to
JA, Larry's HP QSOs were MORE than 4 times what my QRP QSOs were; in fact
lacking one he worked SEVEN times more JAs than I did.
> Look at the results for the past few years and count the stations in
> top who ran high power. The unrealistic bias against power makes
> deciding how to win this contest easy. Have good TX antennas, run
> QRP, and you are almost guaranteed a top spot.
>From the 1999 Top Ten I note 10% HP, 30% LP, & 60% QRP. Top score was 3,726
by a VK6VZ, HP.
>From the 1998 Top Ten I note 30% HP, 30% LP, & 40% QRP. Top score was 3,836
by K1ZM, QRP.
>From the 1997 Top Ten I note 60% HP, 30% LP, & 10% QRP. Top score was 4,751
by GM3POI, HP. K1ZM, QRP was #6.
>From the 1996 Top Ten I note 40% HP, 40% LP, & 20% QRP. Top score was 3,485
by GM3POI, HP. K1ZM, QRP was #10.
Three out of four years the overall winner is a HP station. Not bad. And
the 1998 winner at QRP has undoubtably the finest location anywhere for a
Top Band contest. If enough stations were on and the propagation is there,
Jeff would win whether he competed at HP, LP, or QRP.
This quick analysis tells me that it is more the sunspot cycle and the
propagation than it is power multipliers. Jeff continually moved up in the
rankings as the DX propagation went away. Apparently he did not participate
in the 1999 running. Had he/his station participated, I am sure that he
would have been in the Top Ten but NOT the overall winner. Why? Because of
the abnormal propagation favored the stations to the West.
Why were there less HP stations in the Top Ten this past December? Mostly
because they did not participate or turn in logs. Check out the Top Ten in
the 4 contests. In 1999 a number of the previous HP winner's call signs do
NOT appear at all in the listing. The most compelling theory is that the
Saturday night before Christmas is NOT a good time to have a one night
contest. we'll see how it does right before New Year this winter.
> It doesn't matter how you "hear", or how much DX you work when
> the multiplier is so large. That's why European QSO's were down to
> nil this year. Everyone is learning the way to win the SP is to run
> low power.
Again it has very little to do with the multiplier. The whole scenario is
1. How many stations are on the air. 2. Propagation. 3. And your
location. The analysis above shows that to be true. My 2 dollarettes
worth. Milt, N5IA/N7GP.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> w8ji@contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/topband
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|