CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'CQ Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for discussion
From: "Robert Brandon" <rb@austin.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:38:05 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Of course mode selection would have an impact.  Those who did more SSB would
have fewer Skimmer spots.

And band selection might also make a difference.  Stations that spent more
time on the low bands would probably get fewer Skimmer spots due to reduced
S/N ratio there.  

And I would think that stations with better run frequencies (i.e., a bigger
hole with less QRM) would allow Skimmer to better discriminate the signal.
I know some think it's better to squeeze into a small hole to be in the
bottom of the band than to go high in the band.  I'm not sure what's best
for rate in WRTC, but the latter strategy would likely mean more spots.  

Robert K5PI  

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:13 AM
To: CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for
discussion

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 ?

On the suggestion of my teammate, N6TV, our CQ was "TEST R39M R39M". All 
characters were sent at the same speed - usually at 36 or 38 WPM. That seems
to 
have resulted in the 6th highest skimmer capture rate.

73,
Steve, N2IC

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

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

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