This isn't quite accurate, missing 10 QSOs and 1 multiplier for W3LPL. But
it gives an idea of how these two multi-multis compared during the course of
the weekend.
Highlights:
00z: K1KI gets off to a great first hour, leaving W3LPL 40 QSOs in the dust.
But, strangely, W3LPL works five more multipliers that same first hour,
establishing a lead in multipliers that K1KI would never catch up to.
Through the rest of the contest W3LPL generally continued to increase its
lead (with occasional backsliding), to end the contest 11 multipliers ahead
of K1KI.
01-04z: During the next 3 hours W3LPL struggles to make up the difference in
QSOs, gaining back about half the difference.
04-07z: But during the next 3 hours K1KI climbs back to nearly the same
lead as before. Here after European sunrise K1KI is 38 QSOs ahead of LPL and
only one multiplier behind (as close as it would get).
07-11z: In the next four post-dawn hours in Europe, W3LPL just blows by
K1KI... from 38 QSOs behind to 40 QSOs ahead. Huh? I haven't figured this
one out yet. Maybe there are more JA QSOs in the LPL log? (Tom?) LPL picks
up 8 more multipliers than KI does, too.
11z-14z: K1KI catches up ten Qs and three mults. Everyone listens to the
long-path Europeans and then goes off for a nap.
18z-00z: It's never too early to start hunting those Europeans. K1KI starts
off at 1pm in the local afternoon and during the next six hours crunches
inexorable from 25 QSOs behind to 78 QSOs ahead of LPL. At the end of the
first day, this is their highwater mark in the race. (They're still four
mults behind, though.)
At this moment K3NA and WB2EKK are chatting: "Gee, what a great day that was!
Too bad we have to slug through another 24 hours of this stuff. We just had
a great time, and the second day never changes the relative standings... so
what's the point?"
In a way, they are right: W3LPL has 3174 QSOs and 456 multipliers. K1KI has
3114 and 422. But Eric and John don't know that they are way behind on 40m
QSOs... and that Day 2 will be their salvation from complete embarassment,
leaving them only a litte pink in the cheeks...
Day 2:
00-08z: Every hour W3LPL gains on K1KI. By the end of this period W3LPL has
moved to a 9 QSO/9 multiplier lead.
08-10z: Another headscratcher... Yesterday W3LPL made 38 more QSOs in this
period than K1KI. Today W3LPL makes 32 QSOs less! Maybe the coffee at K1KI
was more effective? Or K1KI just worked all those JAs they missed the day
before? Whatever the cause, KI pulls ahead in QSOs and stays there for the
rest of the contest.
10-15z: W3LPL scrounges up 10 more Q's that K1KI. This was an amazing
time, still working Europeans on the short path... eventually just Pacific...
and then wrapping up with a QSO with UA6LTI on the very long path.
15z-18z: Snoozyville...
19z-00z: As on Saturday, K1KI pulls out more QSOs and finishes the contest
30 QSOs ahead of W3LPL: 1429 vs 1399. But LPL wraps up 12 more
multipliers... and with each multiplier worth about 11 QSOs, the multipliers
more than make up for the difference in QSO volume.
So Tom, let's figure out what happened during those strange hours...
-- Eric K3NA
W3LPL............. K1KI............... W3LPL minus K1KI
new new cum cum new new cum cum new new cum cum
Z Q C Q C Q C Q C Q C Q C
00 81 32 81 32 121 27 121 27 (-40) 5 (-40) 5
01 80 14 161 46 73 13 194 40 7 1 (-33) 6
02 56 11 217 57 46 14 240 54 10 (-3) (-23) 3
03 44 7 261 64 37 4 277 58 7 3 (-16) 6
04 43 4 304 68 57 4 334 62 (-14) 0 (-30) 6
05 52 2 356 70 54 7 388 69 (-2) (-5) (-32) 1
06 47 5 403 75 53 5 441 74 (-6) 0 (-38) 1
07 63 3 466 78 31 2 472 76 32 1 (-6) 2
08 68 7 534 85 28 1 500 77 40 6 34 8
09 24 2 558 87 26 1 526 78 (-2) 1 32 9
10 19 2 577 89 11 2 537 80 8 0 40 9
11 10 1 587 90 12 1 549 81 (-2) 0 38 9
12 7 2 594 92 10 5 559 86 (-3) (-3) 35 6
13 594 92 3 0 562 86 (-3) 0 32 6
14 594 92 562 86 0 0 32 6
15 594 92 562 86 0 0 32 6
16 594 92 562 86 0 0 32 6
17 594 92 562 86 0 0 32 6
18 1 0 595 92 8 0 570 86 (-7) 0 25 6
19 10 0 605 92 10 0 580 86 0 0 25 6
20 33 0 638 92 68 2 648 88 (-35) (-2) (-10) 4
21 61 3 699 95 89 0 737 88 (-28) 3 (-38) 7
22 83 3 782 98 100 5 837 93 (-17) (-2) (-55) 5
23 52 1 834 99 75 2 912 95 (-23) (-1) (-78) 4
00 66 1 900 100 42 0 954 95 24 1 (-54) 5
01 33 1 933 101 28 1 982 96 5 0 (-49) 5
02 19 1 952 102 7 0 989 96 12 1 (-37) 6
03 21 1 973 103 8 1 997 97 13 0 (-24) 6
04 17 1 990 104 6 1 1003 98 11 0 (-13) 6
05 25 1 1015 105 10 2 1013 100 15 (-1) 2 5
06 32 4 1047 109 31 0 1044 100 1 4 3 9
07 62 1 1109 110 56 1 1100 101 6 0 9 9
08 50 0 1159 110 59 2 1159 103 (-9) (-2) 0 7
09 28 0 1187 110 51 0 1210 103 (-23) 0 (-23) 7
10 16 2 1203 112 16 1 1226 104 0 1 (-23) 8
11 14 1 1217 113 10 2 1236 106 4 (-1) (-19) 7
12 11 1 1228 114 4 0 1240 106 7 1 (-12) 8
13 3 0 1231 114 1240 106 3 0 (-9) 8
14 2 0 1233 114 1240 106 2 0 (-7) 8
15 1233 114 1240 106 0 0 (-7) 8
16 1233 114 1240 106 0 0 (-7) 8
17 1233 114 1240 106 0 0 (-7) 8
18 1233 114 2 0 1242 106 (-2) 0 (-9) 8
19 16 0 1249 114 13 1 1255 107 3 (-1) (-6) 7
20 38 1 1287 115 38 0 1293 107 0 1 (-6) 8
21 39 1 1326 116 55 2 1348 109 (-16) (-1) (-22) 7
22 34 4 1360 120 55 2 1403 111 (-21) 2 (-43) 9
23 29 5 1389 125 26 3 1429 114 3 2 (-40) 11
>From Phil Koch PHONE: 412/472-7076 ID: PKOCH"
><ususa4kv@ibmmail.com Thu Feb 23 22:02:05 1995
From: Phil Koch PHONE: 412/472-7076 ID: PKOCH"
<ususa4kv@ibmmail.com ( Phil Koch PHONE: 412/472-7076 ID: PKOCH)
Subject: (U)
UNSUBSCRIBE
***************************************************************
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> Thu Feb 23 21:53:00 1995
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: Infreq. signing
Message-ID: <33950223215333/0005543629NA2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
>From the viewpoint of the dx station, I've found that the most important
issue is that you be easy to identify quickly...the makeup of the pileup
audience is very dynamic, so broadcasting anything at all to the pileup in
the belief that it is static is useless...especially early in the contest,
new big gun stations are continuously coming across your signal, and will
crack the pile on the first call if they know who it is...thus the statistical
concept doesn't really apply...I think the highest rate comes from picking
2 or more calls out of the pileup and working them before you signal the
pileup to restart with either your call or some form of "TU" that is unique
to you...from an information theoretic veiwpoint, there is so much more
unambiguous information content in your call, it makes a lot of sense to use
it or an abreviated form to demark the end of a Q.
My own preferred technique in a big pileup situation (EA9UK, P40V, HC8A) is
to make some reply to each burst of pileup timed so that it quickly becomes
apparent that calling more than once is useless...once the pileup is
disciplined this way, the maximum rate can be gotten under these conditions
(the best condition for rate, of course, is only one or two callers each
time, but you don't get to chose and managing the huge pileup by working it
down so fast it doesn't get out of hand is the mark of the real experts)...
because you generally can't count on getting a full call anyway, I don't have
the strong feelings other express about partials, I just work 'em and hope
they are smart enough to fill only the part I don't repeat in connection with
the report.
I've also noticed that really high rates depend more on rhythm (say over
350/hr on SSB, 200/hr on CW), so preventing the constant pressure from ??
or CL? helps keep things moving...unless the pileup appears static, say
late in the contest, I try to use the call as the "end of Q, pileup go"
signal...of course on SSB, you don't use phonetics except maybe one in
three times, and for a longer call on CW you might devise some abbreviated
form that isn't too long but uniquely identifies you...Carl and I averaged
over 200/hour for 48 hours at P40V last year, so it seems that you would
need to be shooting for over 10000 Q's before you would really be able to
realize the benefits of the imagined lost time...final thought: I think
the technique you choose to use may depend on your own stage of development
and the specific nature of your own pileups...just try to imagine it from
the other end, and don't get hung up on statistical models that might not
apply...and grin from ear to ear when it's going great and the 10-minute
rate is hanging above 600/hr!
73 de Dave, W6QHS 554-3629@mcimail.com
>From fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) Thu Feb 23
>22:27:23 1995
From: fish@crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher,
KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Subject: Incomplete exchanges
Message-ID: <199502232227.AA19830@mail.crl.com>
>
>Inbetween not sending an exchange and sending one is the practice I
>have heard by some recent hotshots which is to send NN instead of
>5NN. Some of them send ENN instead of 5NN.
>
>I don't like ENN and probably won't work people who are doing that, but
>NN is going too far and isn't an exchange. If you hear this, please
>don't support the practice by working them.
>
>Tree N6TR
>tree@cmicro.com
>
>
I disagree. The RST part of the exchange is meaningless... and this is just
another way to abbreviate something on CW. How is this different from 5NN
TTT for 599 1000?
If I were DX in arrl my exchange would be NNK. That's all.
73
---
Bill Fisher, KM9P - Concentric Systems, Inc.
>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Thu Feb 23 21:19:06 1995
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: Sprint vs DX?
Message-ID: <JqVZ1c2w165w@w2up.wells.com>
How about a CQWW DX Sprint? 4 hours of DX contesting, to satsify the
Sprinters AND the DX contesters, and most importantly my XYL!
73
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From tree@cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) Thu Feb 23 22:31:34 1995
From: tree@cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Incomplete exchanges
Message-ID: <9502232231.AA20561@cmicro.com>
N6TR writes:
> >I don't like ENN and probably won't work people who are doing that, but
> >NN is going too far and isn't an exchange. If you hear this, please
> >don't support the practice by working them.
>
KM9P writes:
> I disagree. The RST part of the exchange is meaningless... and this is just
> another way to abbreviate something on CW. How is this different from 5NN
> TTT for 599 1000?
>
> If I were DX in arrl my exchange would be NNK. That's all.
Wonder what other people think. Am I just a stick in the mud because I
don't think we should allow NN as an RST?
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
|