[PVRCNC] More bad SS statistics

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:22:04 -0500

My prior comment to the contary, maybe empirical evidence and logic is more
persuasive:

Howie and Will are usually pretty evenly matched. Howie, unassisted got more
Q's. Will, Assisted, got a sweep. Draw your own conclusions!

(The above logic is similar to that familiar to all college students in the
60's:
1. Love is blind
2. God is love
3. Ray Charles is blind
Therefore: Ray Charles is God.

----- Original Message -----
From: "alsopb" <[email protected]>
To: "PVRCNC" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject: [PVRCNC] More bad SS statistics

> Guys,
>
> To provide an alternate analysis of whether assisted helps or hurts, I
> submit the following analysis.
>
> 1.  Data set - the most recently published 2002 CW SS results #3
> 2.  Data included:
> For assisted-- all stations
> For SO -- all class B stations
> 3.  Comparison method:  compute mean and standard deviation
> 4.  Hypothesis to be tested-- On the average assisted operation
> improves scores.
>
> Suffers from the following inadequacies.  No control group
> established. Sampling is questionable.  Not all U stations may have
> been high power-- thus the affect of power is possibly a confounding
> factor.
>
> Results:  SO   mean = 97103 standard deviation 48752  20 data points
>                mean =101639 standard deviation 45719  (ignoring the
> one 10K outlier)
>
> Results:   SOA  mean = 129218  standard deviation 39816   11 data
> points.
>
> Just comparing the means shows a benefit of over 30% for packet.  If
> one also considers the standard deviations, one can't conclude
> anything.  The distributions are just too scattered.
>
> Note: If one were to include A stations in the SO results, the mean
> would have been even lower.
>
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
> _______________________________________________
> PVRCNC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc