ULDXIndex - A Suggestion


Paul Blundell
 

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?


 

Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.

 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 11:39 AM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?
 


Gary DeBock
 

<<<   Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.   >>>

Paul,

Of course everyone is welcome to chase DX any way they wish and rate their DX catches any way they want, but most of the experienced DXers value the challenge of long distance and low powered catches, and study propagation, antennas and tactics in order to increase their chances of success in this form of challenging DX. Long distance transoceanic DX and low powered DX do require a lot more effort on the part of the DXer, but the thrill of success is greater, and the ULDX Index was most likely designed by DXers who appreciate this challenge, and think it should be emphasized.

Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)
  


Paul Blundell
 

In MWDXerDB, I have used these values for the different signal levels.
Poor = 1.1
Weak = 1.4
Average = 1.9
Good = 2.4
Excellent = 3

The formula I use is: Distance/ Power * SignalLevel = ULDXIndex

These were only some rough figures, I am happy to adjust these to ensure it is a fair system.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 11:39 AM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?
 



--
Paul


Paul Blundell
 

Those are all very good points and I agree. I was just playing around with a way to include the signal level as well, so that it is not just about if you log a station but also how well the signal comes in. I also plan to include a weighting for internal v external to allow for the differences this makes.

I will share what I do and find but am in no way trying to force anybody to use this system, as you said we can all rate our catches how we want.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:30 PM Gary DeBock via groups.io <D1028Gary=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
<<<   Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.   >>>

Paul,

Of course everyone is welcome to chase DX any way they wish and rate their DX catches any way they want, but most of the experienced DXers value the challenge of long distance and low powered catches, and study propagation, antennas and tactics in order to increase their chances of success in this form of challenging DX. Long distance transoceanic DX and low powered DX do require a lot more effort on the part of the DXer, but the thrill of success is greater, and the ULDX Index was most likely designed by DXers who appreciate this challenge, and think it should be emphasized.

Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)
  



--
Paul


 

So the jump is .3 - .5 - .5 - .6? 
The increse of each looks about right. Do you see a way to include both this and the origional way in your program? Some people might want to use one system, the other or a mix of both.

 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 2:17 PM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@ultralightdx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion
In MWDXerDB, I have used these values for the different signal levels.
Poor = 1.1
Weak = 1.4
Average = 1.9
Good = 2.4
Excellent = 3

The formula I use is: Distance/ Power * SignalLevel = ULDXIndex
 
These were only some rough figures, I am happy to adjust these to ensure it is a fair system.
 
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 11:39 AM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?
 

 

 

 
 
--
Paul
 


Paul Blundell
 

I spent a bit of time trying different values to get to a value for each which for me makes sense and works.
I am happy with how this works for me, if others also want to use this or any other system, that's good. I think what matters is that we each have a system that we understand and works for our needs.


On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 1:17 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
So the jump is .3 - .5 - .5 - .6? 
The increse of each looks about right. Do you see a way to include both this and the origional way in your program? Some people might want to use one system, the other or a mix of both.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 2:17 PM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@ultralightdx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion
In MWDXerDB, I have used these values for the different signal levels.
Poor = 1.1
Weak = 1.4
Average = 1.9
Good = 2.4
Excellent = 3

The formula I use is: Distance/ Power * SignalLevel = ULDXIndex
 
These were only some rough figures, I am happy to adjust these to ensure it is a fair system.
 
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 11:39 AM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?
 

 

 

 
 
--
Paul
 



--
Paul


Paul S. in CT
 

I have had for many years used a combination of distance and power making a 'points' system. It does not take into account the subjective nature of poor, weak, average, good, or excellant. Sometimes receivong anything readable is good. And sometimes a high-power station might be received poorly/weakly, or just average. So here's the formula...

(Log(500,000)/Log(Power)) squared times the distance (km)

As option take the square root of the values and multiply by the points answer above...

poor = 1 (1.000), weak = 2 (1.414), average = 3 (1.732), good = 4 (2.000), and excellant = 5 (2.236).

Just a suggestion to try out. I think you will find that low power aand high distance to be 'real DX'.

Regards
Paul S. in CT FN31nl


Paul Blundell
 

Thanks for that Paul, that makes a lot of sense. I am still working on getting mine just how I like it. Your method sounds like it works well.

Paul

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:08 PM Paul S. in CT <dxrx@...> wrote:
I have had for many years used a combination of distance and power making a 'points' system. It does not  take into account the subjective nature of poor, weak, average, good, or excellant. Sometimes receivong anything readable is good. And sometimes a high-power station might be received poorly/weakly, or just average. So here's the formula...

(Log(500,000)/Log(Power)) squared times the distance (km)

As option take the square root of the values and multiply by the points answer above...

poor = 1 (1.000), weak = 2 (1.414), average = 3 (1.732), good = 4 (2.000), and excellant = 5 (2.236).

Just a suggestion to try out. I think you will find that low power aand high distance to be 'real DX'.

Regards
Paul S. in CT FN31nl







--
Paul


 

It works for you and that is the important thing.

 
 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2021 at 2:18 PM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@ultralightdx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion
I spent a bit of time trying different values to get to a value for each which for me makes sense and works.
I am happy with how this works for me, if others also want to use this or any other system, that's good. I think what matters is that we each have a system that we understand and works for our needs.
 
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 1:17 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
So the jump is .3 - .5 - .5 - .6? 
The increse of each looks about right. Do you see a way to include both this and the origional way in your program? Some people might want to use one system, the other or a mix of both.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 2:17 PM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@ultralightdx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion
In MWDXerDB, I have used these values for the different signal levels.
Poor = 1.1
Weak = 1.4
Average = 1.9
Good = 2.4
Excellent = 3

The formula I use is: Distance/ Power * SignalLevel = ULDXIndex
 
These were only some rough figures, I am happy to adjust these to ensure it is a fair system.
 
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...> wrote:
Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.
 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 11:39 AM
From: "Paul Blundell" <tanger32au@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion

Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.

The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves. 




This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?
 

 

 

 
 
--
Paul
 

 

 

 
 
--
Paul
 


 

I am not the best with math but that looks like a good way to rate them. For me, it is all about the best DX possible. 

 
 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2021 at 4:08 PM
From: "Paul S. in CT" <dxrx@...>
To: main@UltralightDX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [UltralightDX] ULDXIndex - A Suggestion
I have had for many years used a combination of distance and power making a 'points' system. It does not take into account the subjective nature of poor, weak, average, good, or excellant. Sometimes receivong anything readable is good. And sometimes a high-power station might be received poorly/weakly, or just average. So here's the formula...

(Log(500,000)/Log(Power)) squared times the distance (km)

As option take the square root of the values and multiply by the points answer above...

poor = 1 (1.000), weak = 2 (1.414), average = 3 (1.732), good = 4 (2.000), and excellant = 5 (2.236).

Just a suggestion to try out. I think you will find that low power aand high distance to be 'real DX'.

Regards
Paul S. in CT FN31nl