CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW hours of operation: analysis

To: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@pclink.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW hours of operation: analysis
From: "Cedrick \"Fred\" Johnson - WT2P" <fredwt2p@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:46:38 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Bawk Bawk..

I know during the previous (mid-90's) cycle I didn't operate the full 
48, but when it was 'worth my while' as conditions improved, I would 
begin to do closer to the full 48. I think 3W does have a point...


wt2p

Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> Richard - NN3W sez:
>
> "While you'll probably see an incremental change in the number of hams 
> operating 40-48, I'll bet money that the percentage over 24 hours increases 
> dramatically."
>
>
> Bob - Kay Zero "Rubber Chicken" sez:
>
> Bwaak! I think different! I doubt the numbers will change much at all. Your 
> analysis probably reveals more the "life style" of the cross-section of hams 
> who participate in Radiosport. Whether the bands are hot or not, family 
> commitments most likely have more impact on the number of hours spent in the 
> chair. At least that's a common thread I read in the Soapbox comments after 
> contests.
>
> Although... if you go back 10, 20, or 30 years, maybe the numbers will skew 
> higher because everyone was younger and had more stamina. I did. But I don't 
> believe the number of hours were being recorded until the 3830 list started 
> up, so that might be a difficult trend to "prove".
>
> In any case, they are interesting statistics and I hope you collect and 
> present more examples. The sun spots are coming soon, to an ionosphere near 
> you!
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
>
> ------------PREVIOUS THREAD---------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 6:41:43 -0400
> From: Richard DiDonna NN3W <nn3w@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW hours of operation: analysis
> To: "K7LXC@aol.com" <K7LXC@aol.com>, "cq-contest@contesting.com"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>, "va3pl@cuic.ca" <va3pl@cuic.ca>
> Message-ID:
> <18135160.1183891303341.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml27.mgt.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Itd be interesting to do a hours of operation analysis at the peak of the 
> cycle, as opposed to 2006 which was on the verge of being the absolute bottom 
> of the cycle...
>
> While  you'll probably see an incremental change in the number of hams 
> operating 40-48, I'll bet money that the percentage over 24 hours increases 
> dramatically.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <K7LXC@aol.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>; <va3pl@cuic.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 8:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW hours of operation: analysis
>
>
>   
>> In a message dated 7/6/2007 5:22:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
>> cq-contest-request@contesting.com writes:
>>
>>     
>>>  Well Chris, very interesting stats.
>>>       
>>>  Never  would I have guessed that only 11% of all SOAB entrants 
>>>       
>> operate more than  30 hours.  We are a very small group, indeed!
>>
>> <|||?  I  hope this lines up okay.  Group = hours of operation as per Chris' 
>>  
>> email.
>>
>>     
>>> group    Pct/group  cumulative Pct
>>>       
>> 42-48      1.92%      1.92%
>> 36-42      3.21%      5.13%
>> 30-36      6.15%     11.28%
>> 24-30      7.85%     19.13%
>> 18-24     11.81%     30.94%
>> 12-18     18.82%     49.76%
>>  6-12     25.31%     75.07%
>>  0-6      24.93%    100.00%
>>
>>
>>     Interesting indeed. And wudda thunk  that only about 19% go more than 24 
>> hours. It's a battle of attrition! 
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve    K7LXC
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>   

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>