Topband: Speculating via Stew posted scores

Mon Dec 29 17:46:42 EST 2014

>From another QRP perspective, conditions were pretty miserable from here in Michigan, "part of the mid-west sorta thang.".  I didn't hear a single Euro, KH6, or KL7.  I only heard 2 CA  guys but they couldn't pull me out and worked only 2 in FL which seemed odd.  In the past couple of years I was able to work G, KH6, and CE1 with my puny 5 W.   I gave up early trying to fight the QRO guys (especially those with key clicks) and the endless CQ machines which would look for a response for maybe 500uSec.  I just decided to pound away trying to get as many 3, 6, and 9 pointers as I could.  I did end up with 228 Q's and and 103 grids.  I operated for a total of 9 hrs: 2200Z - 0500Z and then 1100Z - 1300Z Sunday morning (this old man just can't stay up all night like I used to.)
I'm not sure what K9JWV is looking for, but I put my log into a spreadsheet and sorted by grid, with the following results:500-1000mi. - 111 Q's,  FM19 was the most with 13 Q's followed by FN42 with 10 Q's which is probably reflective of the ham population in those grids1000 - 1500 mi. - 10 Q's1500 - 2000 mi. - 6 Q's2000+ mi. - 2 Q's, NP4X and KV4FZ.
My station consists of a K3, a "T" xmit antenna 62' high with a 144' span on the top and 64 radials, K9AY loops for RX.
So, if I can stay awake, maybe I'll run into you in the CQ160 the end of Jan.
Russ, N3CO
      From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_llc at msn.com>
 To: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>; Top Band Contesting <topband at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:18 AM
 Subject: Re: Topband: Speculating via Stew posted scores

Forgot to state that both stations I used as examples were QRP entries, Tim ....k5go is in AR and n9tf is in IL and I chose them 'cuz they are reasonably close to each other, "mid-west sorta thang." 

I guess....if we all chimed in with our ideas of why the numbers are different, we'd have a shopping list of things/constraints/influencers to consider when setting up the antenna system, rig to use, contest category to enter, time periods to focus our operating time on, etc.....

'Nuff said - I can hardly wait to get home and modify my current antenna system to get back on 160....miss my old 43' vertical, 25' top loading wires and elevated radials...hihi

72 and Best Wishes to all in 2015 -- here's hoping for improved low band conditions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Jim R. K9JWV 

> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:29:45 -0500
> From: tshoppa at gmail.com
> To: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com; topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Speculating via Stew posted scores
> 
> Oops, braino correction on the last sentence. I temporarily forgot that
> there were bands and contests other than 160M :-). Last sentence should
> read "ARRL 160 low power category".
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > There are many different factors at play way beyond the antenna system.
> > First and foremost, K5GO is QRP so he gets an automatic 3x multiplier for
> > all his QSO's. I don't know N9FT's category.
> >
> > Beyond power category, a station in a densely populated area will get an
> > awful lot of 1-pointers and 2-pointers, even working local stations that
> > can't load their bedsprings on 160M. A station that is in a remote area but
> > within easy low-power reach of one or even better two population centers
> > can get fewer QSO's but most of them are 3-, 4-, and 5- pointers (and he
> > may get a 1.5 multiplier on every Q if he was low power himself or a 3x
> > multiplier if he was QRP.)
> >
> > Even in contests without distance multipliers and with section+DXCC
> > multipliers, there is an advantage to being in low-power reach of multiple
> > domestic population centers. For example US midwest rules the ARRL DX low
> > power category.
> >
> > Tim N3QE
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:56 AM, James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_llc at msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  Is there a way via Stew results to measure the concentration of Qs...
> >> with relation to the distance of the Q?
> >>
> >> For example, looking over the scores posed at the 3830 web site one finds
> >> N9FT's QSOs to point ratio is 3 pts. while K5GO has a ratio of 8.1.
> >>
> >> On the surface, one would draw the conclusion.. that K5GOs Qs were
> >> farther away, suggesting an antenna system geared to lower elevation of
> >> radiation while N9FT's antenna may favor shorter hauls?
> >>
> >> Also, propagation and local noise enter into the discussion as
> >> well....and, can't discount more QRP Qs for K5GO, perhaps.
> >>
> >> My QRP friend, WC7S, and I consider all of this one of the joys of
> >> working the Stew...one can draw/speculate loose conclusions from the
> >> scores... sorta. Then one goes to QRZ.com to see f the stations of interest
> >> list equipment and antennas and them MORE speculation crops up ---- all of
> >> this should be undertaken during happy hour!
> >>
> >> 72 to all, Jim Rodenkirch  K9JWV
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________
> >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

> >>
> >
> >
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband