40m shootout: W3LPL vs K1KI

K3NA at aol.com K3NA at aol.com
Thu Feb 23 17:02:33 EST 1995


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 at ibmmail.com  Thu Feb 23 22:02:05 1995
From:   Phil Koch         PHONE:  412/472-7076  ID:  PKOCH" <ususa4kv at ibmmail.com (  Phil Koch         PHONE:  412/472-7076  ID:  PKOCH)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:02:05 EST
Subject: (U)


UNSUBSCRIBE

***************************************************************

>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com>  Thu Feb 23 21:53:00 1995
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 16:53 EST
Subject: Infreq. signing
Message-ID: <33950223215333/0005543629NA2EM at 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 at mcimail.com


>From fish at crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.)  Thu Feb 23 22:27:23 1995
From: fish at crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 14:27:23 -0800
Subject: Incomplete exchanges
Message-ID: <199502232227.AA19830 at 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 at 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 at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Thu Feb 23 21:19:06 1995
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 21:19:06 GMT
Subject: Sprint vs DX?
Message-ID: <JqVZ1c2w165w at 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 at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................


>From tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree)  Thu Feb 23 22:31:34 1995
From: tree at cmicro.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 14:31:34 PST
Subject: Incomplete exchanges
Message-ID: <9502232231.AA20561 at 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 at cmicro.com



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list