Spoken like a westerner, Steve.
'Ted's data covered 5 years, not just this year - most of the whole
downslope of this sunspot cycle. I think they're pretty persuasive.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 04:00 PM 2/10/2009, yN2IC wrote:
>No doubt, 20 meters really stunk for everyone last weekend. However, a one
>time
>anomaly is not a good reason to change what has worked well for the past
>25 years.
>
>If you question whether this last Sprint was an anomaly, compare with the
>results of the February, 2008 CW Sprint. The solar flux was exactly the
>same -
>70-71, but the number of 20 meter QSO's made by everyone, east and west coast
>alike, was much higher.
>
>73,
>Steve, N2IC
>
>Pete Smith wrote:
> > Bravo, Ted! Succinctly stated, good data, asking the right questions.
> >
> > I favor a test of moving the February Sprint an hour earlier, but keeping
> > the bands as is. Reasoning, chiefly, is that it's a minimal change and
> > doesn't penalize guys without good 160M antennas, and doing it once (say,
> > next year) should help to illuminate the cause of the much-more-profound
> > bias in February.
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> >
> > At 02:20 PM 2/10/2009, Ted Bryant wrote:
> >> On the 3830 reflector, Andy N2NT asked:
> >>
> >> "...Anyone for moving the Feb sprint an hour earlier or to 160m? Well, at
> >> least till the spots come back..."
> >>
> >> Interesting ideas, Andy.
> >>
> >> In the Northern California Contest Club's annual Sprint "Ladder"
> >> competition, there are three competitive categories. One is strictly for
> >> NCCC members but the other two divide the U.S. into two groups: stations
> >> East and West of the Mississippi River. Apparently someone recognized
> that
> >> there must be some geographical/propagational bias that warranted these
> >> groupings. Also, the Ladder competition is held across 20/40/80 and 160
> >> meters. Applying the NCCC Ladder competition's categories to the claimed
> >> scores for the FEBRUARY Sprint CW for the last 5 years shows some
> >> interesting details.
> >>
> >> # stations in top 20: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2005 16 4
> >> 2006 17 3
> >> 2007 14 6
> >> 2008 13 7
> >> 2009 14 6
> >>
> >> # stations in top 10: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2005 9 1
> >> 2006 9 1
> >> 2007 8 2
> >> 2008 6 4
> >> 2009 8 2
> >>
> >> # stations in top 5: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2005 5 0
> >> 2006 5 0
> >> 2007 5 0
> >> 2008 5 0
> >> 2009 5 0
> >>
> >> To no one's surprise, I'm sure, these statistics show a pretty clear
> >> advantage for stations West of the Mississippi River in the February CW
> >> Sprint.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's look at the statistics for the last 5 SEPTEMBER CW Sprints:
> >>
> >> # stations in top 20: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2004 9 11
> >> 2005 14 6
> >> 2006 9 11
> >> 2007 10 10
> >> 2008 8 12
> >>
> >> # stations in top 10: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2004 4 6
> >> 2005 8 2
> >> 2006 6 4
> >> 2007 4 6
> >> 2008 6 4
> >>
> >> # stations in top 5: West of the Miss East of the Miss
> >> 2004 2 3
> >> 2005 4 1
> >> 2006 4 1
> >> 2007 3 2
> >> 2008 4 1
> >>
> >> The September Sprint is much more equitable but it is still tough to break
> >> into the top 5 if you are East of the Mississippi.
> >>
> >> So, to follow up on Andy N2NT's question:
> >> - Should there be any changes made to the February Sprint?
> >> - Should the February Sprint start an hour earlier?
> >> - Should 160m be added? (or replace 20m?)
> >> -or-
> >> - Should Sprint results simply be reported with different/additional
> >> categories? (sorry, Tree!)
> >>
> >> 73, Ted W4NZ
> >>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|