[NLRS] EN37ed Unique station analysis - inspired by KC0IYT question

[David Palm]

FWIW, 56 of my 118 QSOs were with rovers, or 47%.  It would have been
pretty bleak without them......

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Bill Davis via NLRS <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
wrote:

>
>
>  In response to an email from Glen KC0IYT reacting to the fact that 28% of
> my Qs were with rovers, that it might mean that few unique stations were on
> the air. Hence I tried to take a quick look at that .....  The "analysis"
> include the rovers , since they are unique calls too.
>
> Station      Number of Qs
>
> W0GHZ - 7
> W0UC - 6
> N0JCF - 6
> W0ZQ - 5
> KB0CIM - 5
> NT0V - 4
> K9MU - 4
> K2DRH - 4
> K0SIX - 4
> VE3KRP - 3
> KA0RYT - 3
> WB0DBQ - 3
> W9HQ - 3
>             <--------------------------- < Median number of Qs per station
> W0ZF - 2
> VE4MA -2
> NY0A - 2
> N0KK - 2
> WB0VGI - 2
> KD9AXR - 2
> W0PHD - 1
> K0SQ - 1
> W0DJK - 1
> W5CLL -1
>
> WB0LJC - 1
> AI0BP - 1
> W0BM - 1
> ---
> Rovers
> K0DAS/R  (6 Qs)
> KC0P/R    (6 Qs)
> N0HZO/R (2 Qs)
> W9FZ/R   (7 Qs)
> KA9VVQ/R (7Qs)
>
>
> 31 unique stations worked, of these 5 were rovers, 16% of the unique
> stations worked during the contest then were rovers. As before of the
> 104Qs, the rovers accounted for about 28% with 28Qs.
>
> Looking further, after removing the rover stations, the non-rover stations
> accounted for 76 QSOs. The stations above the "number of QSOs median"
> accounted for 58 contacts or 76% or the non rover contacts, whereas the
> stations below the median accounted for 18 contacts or 23% of the non-rover
> contacts. Shows one the impact of the "larger stations".
>
>
> I am not going to mess with trying to trying to looking at actual score
> points since the unique grids become a factor making the results pretty
> hard to interpret, as if the above were that much more "meaningful".
>
>
> Kinda interesting. The station/QSO's number is negatively affected  by
> CONDITIONs , DISTANCE and perhaps geography to some degree. Higher density
> of stations south and south east from my location would provide a higher
> ratio alone. Due to the remoteness of those of us "up north", interesting
> that we have as many as we do operating 4 or more different bands. One
> would think in a higher density population area, there would be more
> stations equipped for a greater number of bands.
>
>
>  In this case I think conditions had a minor effect. Usually I will work
> Barry on a couple more bands and perhaps a couple of rovers. NO ROVER was
> attempted on any freq above 432 except for an attempt with FZ - VVQ on
> 10GHz from EN43. (No joy, but well over 200miles). During the August
> contest more attempts and Qs were made with rovers above 432. Conditions
> were noticeably better then and Mel / Carol came farther north. I really
> don't see many other band/contact losses due to conditions alone. I missed
> working less than a half dozen stations on any band attempted beyond were
> the initial Q was made due to conditions alone.
>
>
> Might be interesting in looking at Sept contest 10years ago? A winter time
> passtime perhaps
>
> Fun ... 73  Bill  K0AWU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html