[CQ-Contest] Spots and Success in the WRTC - a little data for discussion

[Robert Brandon]

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 at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at 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 at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest