Topband: Speculating via Stew posted scores

Tue Dec 30 05:44:47 EST 2014

 I don't know "what I was looking for," Russ --- perhaps I was searching for other's "analysis approaches or takeaways" and your example, with the spreadsheet approach, is one I hadn't contemplated.

I will be in the CQ 160 event and hope to add you to my log....appreciate you taking the time to reply...72, ma Mon --- Jim R. K9JWV  

> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:46:42 +0000
> To: rodenkirch_llc at msn.com; topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Speculating via Stew posted scores
> From: topband at contesting.com
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>   
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband