It IS an advantage - but only to those who can do it well! There is no
need for any further analysis.
Heck, I run SO2R from home with my TH3jr at 15' and my vertical. It's cool,
but I'm not going to win anything from here so, it would be meaningless in
the summary.
SO2R requires more skill - not just more equipment.
If all that was required was more equipment, I could stack up six rigs and
guarantee an SS win - right?
Wrong!
I find myself agreeing with KQ2M on this.
N5NJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <W0uo@cs.com>
To: <kr6x@kr6x.com>; <CQ-CONTEST@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Consider This
> KR6X,
>
> With all due respect, lets look at what I said:
>
> The quickest way to expose {an advantage, or lack thereof}, is to include
it
> in contest reporting. It should be obvious whether such an advantage
exists
> within just a few months.
> >
> > If we want to go further in trying to establish a cause and effect
between
> SO2R and scores we could design an experiment. After one year run on two
> major contest with current rules, change the rules for the subsequent year
> to require stations to stay on one band for just three minutes. (If SO2R
is
> the cause of an advantage}, one would expect the advantage to either be
> substantially decreased or disappear in the second year.
> >
> > Sound like a fair test?
>
> Now, lets state two hypothesis. H0: SO2R is not a significant
advantage
> in contesting. H1: SO2R is a significant advantage in contesting.
Testing
> these hypotheses requires an experimental design. The simplest design,
but
> not the only one and maybe not the best, is to run two contests, one with
> current rules, one with a 3 minute band change limit for both SO1R and
SO2R.
> I could, but will not here, state a decision rule. It should be easy
for
> anyone with a background in statistics. Suffice it to say, if factors
other
> than SO2R are more significant, it will be born out in the measurements.
> There is no other way to end this argument. Them that have want to
keep
> it that way, them that do not want to (or cannot) invest the extra $3,000
or
> so that it takes to SO2R right want it changed.
> It may be that, like SO Assisted, SO2R is not a significant advantage.
> Its time we found out.
>
> 73 de Jim
> W0UO/5
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>From Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee Wed Apr 24 21:46:48 2002
From: Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee (Tonno Vahk)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN - actually not!
References: <Springmail.0994.1019003831.0.22034700@webmail.atl.earthlink.net>
<005a01c1e5f3$d6c23530$4601a8c0@lhvdirect.com>
Message-ID: <023401c1ebd1$28b33550$4601a8c0@lhvdirect.com>
Today I got an impressive letter from Dick Norton, N6AA, member of CQWW
Contest Committee. He clearly showed me that I was was wrong in my
assumptions about mistakes in log checking and all the decisions of the
Committee were VERY CLEARLY reasoned and VERY WELL analyzed.
I want to apologize for any possible indirect accusations I made and for any
doubts I had in the accuracy of the log checking procedure. Iam more than
convinced now that this is an enormous job those guys are doing and I am
very impressed by the standards they have set and by the methods they use.
It goes far beyond what we see in UBN and NIL reports!
Dick clearly explained me that I was the only station working LY3BH actually
as the others were clear -Bs and it was quite certain that LY3BH was not in
the air. I confirmed it also having exchanged some emails with LY stations.
EA8ZC was actually us duping EA8ZS (the duplicate contact was in EA8ZS log!)
He proved me that several other -Bs that were worked by many stations
besides us were really with no doubt -Bs!
He admitted that F8BTQ was probably correct QSO and credit for it will be
restored in the
final run that will determine the score listed in the magazine. That was
probably one of the only errors in the log checking.
He also pointed my attention to the several U calls that should actually
have been marked -B!
There were some 20 of them! I guess you all have been thinking while looking
at the U calls in the UBN report that "Was I really the only one to work
this station or did I mess up the call but was just lucky to hit an existing
one???!!!" Well I have thought so and it felt like a gift of some kind
always!
So the actual subject of my intial posting should have been: "We submitted
the ES9C log with almost 10,000 QSOs, and it had one contact that appeared
to be incorrectly marked -B. There were at least 20 claimed QSOs that should
have been marked -B, but were not"
:)
So no more whining about the UBNs, lets try to be more accurate ourselves
and big thanks to those guys who have been striving to make our favourite
contest what it is!
73
Tonno
ES5TV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] A lot of strange BADs in UBN
> As far as UBNs were mentioned I might say that I noticed quite a few -B
> calls in our ES9C M/M UBN report that were actually absolutely fine and
> existing calls and had been worked by many stations - 30, 40, or even
more.
> There was seemingly no reason to determine them -B (no Wn or anything). I
> know for sure some of them were OK QSOs as I even remember them. Like my
> first QSO on 20m -
>
> 1 -B ly3bh(3) ly3by(1224)ww ly3bx(850)n ly3be(644)ww ly3bg(108) w3bh(2)
>
> It's a well-known contester from LY and we even chatted a few words in the
> beginning of the contest. He has only made a few QSOs as I suspect he
worked
> in some M/S team maybe...
>
> Another example on 20m:
>
> 2183 -B f8btq(17) f8bqq(552)h f8bdq(21) f8bvq(8) hb9btq(147) py7btq(6)
>
> and on 10m:
>
> 269 -B ea8zc(5) ea8zs(4250)ww ea8zz(12) ea8jc(7)
>
> It is a bit irritating actually, don't know if anybody else has noticed
> it...
>
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|