[UK-CONTEST] Fwd: 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]

[G3WVG]

Intersting, but I think the crucial phrase is "all things being equal" and of course they rarely are. 
Geography, terrain and antenna type , orientation and height make for a lot of variables. Nevertheless the data is very useful. 

73 Ian 

Sent from my mobile


On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:43, Gordon Brown <gordonbrowns at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> According to RBN ZGC was first heard at 2018 and last heard at 2129 - 71 minutes
> KNO was first heard at 2000 and last heard at 2055 55 minutes
> ZGC claimed 85 QSOs - that's 1 every 55 secs
> KNO claimed 31 QSOs - that's 1 ever 107 seconds
> So ZGC was twice as fast as KNO
> Can that be explained by the average speed of each of the stations?
> ZGCs average speed was 25 WPM
> KNO average speed was 14 WPM
> So ZGC operated at twice the speed of KNO and made twice the number of QSOs in 
> the same time.
> 
> The difference between KNO running 100W and ZGC running 10W should be 10dB all 
> else being equal but the RBN reports I read are nothing like that difference.
> 
> Now - what about the aerials?
> 
> As my dad said - figures can't lie but liars can figure.
> 
> 73
> Gordon.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
> To: UK contest list <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 January, 2011 16:02:00
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Fwd: 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]
> 
> Clicked wrong button...
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 3rd Jan 80m CC [CW]
> To: g3wvg at btinternet.com
> 
> 
> How cool is that! I never bothered to look at RBN before.
> 
> Out of interest, I sorted the claimed entries by QSO count and picked a few
> to compare with myself at various nodes. What's strking is there isn't a
> massive difference between my signal and some of the leaders. But more
> revealing is that G3ZGC's QRP is indeed consistently weaker than my signal
> and yet he is in 38th place to my 127th! In fact he beats a significant
> number of stations running 100W - well done! OK, I'm no CW op, but this does
> suggest the skill factor is a bigger factor than I had assumed.
> 
> Of course, there isn't really any data from nodes in G-land, so it's
> impossible to see whether some enjoyed better inter-G propagation than
> others - which makes up the meat of the available Q's. I was interested to
> see that I was heard by K3LR near the start of the contest at the same SNR
> as G4FNL, who is currently in 1st place.
> 
> This is all quite encouraging to me because I had assumed it was a
> pipe-dream to think I could get anywhere near the top of the table with my
> station (currently 100W to inverted-vee windom, 30ft apex 10ft ends). A long
> way to go with the skill then... I recall reading something G6XN wrote where
> he reckoned those with beams did better partly because they expected to get
> through to DX, whereas those that didn't gave up too easily.
> 
> 73,
> Andy G4KNO.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Ian Pritchard <g3wvg at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello All
>> 
>> Interesting conditions throughout the 80m CC.  I had expected the band to
>> be pretty poor for inter UK QSOs throughout the contest but for me (in
>> Surrey ) it improved dramatically in the last 45 mins or so.  Today I did a
>> search on the "reverse beacon network comparison tool"  comparing signal
>> strengths of various  high scoring stations (posted on logs received) as
>> received throughout the 90 minutes at various reception points around
>> Europe.  Fascinating stuff.  It would be very interesting to see what
>> antennas everyone was using.  Most of the stations had comparable patterns
>> of signal strengths but  there were some anomalous results. with a very
>> small number of stations exhibiting as much as a 10db advantage over others.
>> 
>> Check it out at    http://www.reversebeacon.net/analysis/
>> 
>> 73 Ian G3WVG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest