CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for discu

To: "'Kenneth E. Harker'" <kenharker@kenharker.com>, "'CQ Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for discussion
From: "Jorge Diez - CX6VM" <cx6vm.jorge@adinet.com.uy>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:29:32 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Here you have a XLS file with the % of SSB QSo´s

http://www.arrl.org/attachments/view/News/53255

73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

-----Mensaje original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] En nombre de Kenneth E. Harker
Enviado el: Lunes, 19 de Julio de 2010 11:37 a.m.
Para: CQ Contest
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for
discussion

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:13:21AM -0600, Steve London wrote:
> A question that I have is...what were R32K, R31X, R36O, R34D, R37P, R39A
and 
> R39R doing differently that caused them to be infrequently picked up by a
skimmer ?

It would be useful to have the SSB v. CW QSO breakdowns by team as well.  
I suspect  R33M spent a lot more time on CW than R33A did.  I love seeing 
data like this!


> Pete Smith wrote:
> > The following table lists the contestants in WRTC by finish order and 
> > callsign, and then shows the number of spots recorded in the Reverse 
> > Beacon Network database.  Reverse beacons don't cheerlead or select 
> > which stations to spot.  You can draw your own conclusions.  Perhaps 
> > there is a statistician among us who can derive further enlightenment by

> > analyzing these numbers, together with others released by the
organizers.
> > 
> > Call        Place    Spots
> > R32F        1       182
> > R33A        2       109
> > R33M        3       316
> > R39D        4       172
> > R34P        5       156
> > R32K        6       0
> > R32R        7       106
> > R31X        8       21
> > R37M        9       189
> > R36C        10      166
> > R33L        11      132
> > R38F        12      232
> > R33G        13      163
> > R31U        14      62
> > R34O        15      122
> > R36Y        16      59
> > R34W        17      197
> > R39M        18      222
> > R32C        19      115
> > R37L        20      139
> > R37Q        21      247
> > R34C        22      184
> > R36O        23      17
> > R38O        24      116
> > R31A        25      302
> > R36F        26      41
> > R38K        27      187
> > R38X        28      79
> > R31D        29      111
> > R34D        30      14
> > R32Z        31      252
> > R32O        32      111
> > R37A        33      184
> > R32W        34      142
> > R31N        35      140
> > R36Z        36      100
> > R38N        37      50
> > R36K        38      91
> > R38W        39      79
> > R37P        40      10
> > R39A        41      25
> > R37U        42      191
> > R34X        43      76
> > R39R        44      12
> > R34Z        45      133
> > R33U        46      96
> > R36W        47      152
> > R33Q        48      85
> > 
> > 
> > When I first saw this, I questioned how it was possible that a station 
> > could finish sixth and yet not be spotted even once, but the scientist 
> > on our team tells me it is not only possible, but statistically likely.

> > In any case, that's what the database says.
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/

_______________________________________________
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>