Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contest DX Stats  (Read 11501 times)
WH7DX
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM »

What a special place!!   Beautiful.  What a drop.  D4C  -  Ham Heaven.

I expect to see some pretty incredible records from here...  like the upcoming ones mentioned above. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4L_BTwfdsA


What I'm talking about here is a new contest - just adding something that I think is inevitable.

Logged
N2NL
Member

Posts: 338




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2013, 03:09:42 PM »

A very sharp drop off is not necessarily a good thing, especially on the high bands.  Having operated from W6NL's mountain top QTH and speaking to him about terrain at length, the primary advantage of a "negative horizon" is the ground reflections at lower angles.  In a sense, you can get away with an antenna lower to the ground, and possibly eliminate the need for stacked antennas which help to cover gaps in takeoff angles on flat terrain.  

The KH6YY/KH7X station is another one with a negative horizon - down slope - which gives them a nice signal boost.  The stacks probably help to cover the headings where they don't necessarily have the takeoff (the uphill and flat directions).

An antenna at the edge of a cliff would most likely be too high - resulting in high angle lobes and a lack of ground gain you otherwise would get - which adds up to be quite a bit.

The AH2R contest station here mounts monoband antennas atop a 10(?) story hotel on a hillside with a further sharp drop off towards Europe.  I was very close in signal strength to them from my old QTH with flat terrain and a tribander up 40ft.  This was due to the ground gain enhancement I got and the ground gain they lost by having antennas up so high, especially on 10 and 15 meters.

My new QTH is on a hilltop so I did terrain analysis (HFTA).  Turns out that 40ft is pretty much the ideal height for a single tribander.  A little too high for 10m, a little too low for 20m, but just right for 15.  It looks like my 6m beam only needs to be up 10 feet to make the most of the ground gain due to the downslope.  Any higher and I start losing gain.

73, Dave
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 03:11:53 PM by N2NL » Logged
WH7DX
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2013, 05:52:12 PM »

A very sharp drop off is not necessarily a good thing, especially on the high bands.  Having operated from W6NL's mountain top QTH and speaking to him about terrain at length, the primary advantage of a "negative horizon" is the ground reflections at lower angles.  In a sense, you can get away with an antenna lower to the ground, and possibly eliminate the need for stacked antennas which help to cover gaps in takeoff angles on flat terrain.  

The KH6YY/KH7X station is another one with a negative horizon - down slope - which gives them a nice signal boost.  The stacks probably help to cover the headings where they don't necessarily have the takeoff (the uphill and flat directions).

An antenna at the edge of a cliff would most likely be too high - resulting in high angle lobes and a lack of ground gain you otherwise would get - which adds up to be quite a bit.

The AH2R contest station here mounts monoband antennas atop a 10(?) story hotel on a hillside with a further sharp drop off towards Europe.  I was very close in signal strength to them from my old QTH with flat terrain and a tribander up 40ft.  This was due to the ground gain enhancement I got and the ground gain they lost by having antennas up so high, especially on 10 and 15 meters.

My new QTH is on a hilltop so I did terrain analysis (HFTA).  Turns out that 40ft is pretty much the ideal height for a single tribander.  A little too high for 10m, a little too low for 20m, but just right for 15.  It looks like my 6m beam only needs to be up 10 feet to make the most of the ground gain due to the downslope.  Any higher and I start losing gain.

73, Dave

So you would prefer a small island in the center of the Atlantic about 40 feet high in the center with a nice round plateau..   I've seen how well those vertical dipoles work near the ocean - amazing and simple.

I get the impression that D4C just pulls signals right out of the clouds..  and sends them out there...  Grin
Logged
N2NL
Member

Posts: 338




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2013, 09:21:41 PM »

D4C does a great job and has very good operators.  They heard me easily during fringe openings as well.

Verticals over or within 1/4l of sea water work very, very well but in tropical locations noise can be very difficult to deal with.  If used concurrently with Beverages, it would be a winning location.  When I lived in Key West with dock mounted verticals, I could easily work anything I could hear on any band, including 160m.  The problem was hearing.  It was a great DX location but not so much for contesting because the 100W bedspring loading EU types were just a buzz in the noise.  Having RX antennas was what really helped me from here in the past.  The AH2R ops would hear me running guys like crazy on the low bands and not hear a peep of what I was working.  They were only about a mile from me.
Logged
WH7DX
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2013, 09:15:02 PM »

For QRP they can multiply the grid factor by a certain # multiple like 2 or 3.   A QSO that was worth 3 grids would be worth 6 or one that was further like 6 would be worth 12...

Perhaps <100w is 2 and <10 is 3 etc.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 09:22:05 PM by WH7DX » Logged
WH7DX
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2013, 01:19:24 PM »

So - the Contest Score is comprised of Grid Points and any multiplier for 100 or less Watts or QRP.

Using this Grid map..   the grid points could be..

1) Each grid is 1 point and your grid distance in shortest path (diagonal, vertical, horizontal)

2) OR it could be a 3 or 4 sections of points given based on distance.   You assign 1,2,3,4 points as you move away from your Grid.. and back down again as you get closer.   It could be this system that gives you the 2 x multiple for 100W or less and 3 x multiple for QRP for example.

Basically, getting away from multiples based on just continents, assigning higher value for long DX and removing some of the value from 80 and 160M close contacts (EU etc..)

http://www.mapability.com/ei8ic/maps/gridworld.php
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 01:26:26 PM by WH7DX » Logged
WH7DX
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2013, 04:23:40 PM »

If they wanted – and it’s probably a good idea – Give a multiplier for each new Grid QSO.   

Take all the QSO points achieved based on Grid Distance – multiply by unique Grid Square contacts.

It should probably be regardless of Band.  No multipliers per band – just 1 multiplier per grid – otherwise it gets distorted with the low bands – like the other contests.   

Maybe do it with the higher bands – 10M – 40M - but probably better to just make it ONE per Grid.

Probably around 200 or so possible active grids out of 324 total.

So - add up all the Grid Distance Points (doesn't matter what band) and multiply by Grid Multiplier Total.   

4,000 QSO (average grid value was 6) = 24,000 x 82 Unique Grids = 1,968,000 points.




Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!