[PVRCNC] More bad SS statistics

[alsopb]

Guys,

Real question is would Howie have done better with packet?

Using the same logic below.

Since Will got a sweep and Howie didn't and they are equally matched
otherwise, then the sweep is due to packet.  Thus if Howie had packet,
he would also have gotten a sweep.  Packet would have helped his
score.  He needed only one strategic QSO.  

Now for the other conclusion.  Howie got more QSO's than Will.  Since
they are equally matched, the extra qso's are due to Howie not having
packet.  Thus Will would have increased the number of QSO's by not
using packet.  From above, he would have lost his sweep.  Would his
score have gone up?  Would he have equaled Howie? 

Actually one could propose a number of strategies to boost club and
possibly individual scores using packet--even for those who dislike
it.

1) For those who are proficient without packet, operate SO for the
first X hours as present.  Turn on packet to pick up sweep and fresh
meat.  X is determined when one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. 
Actually, one can have the packet program alarm KL7,KH6, VO, VY
prefixes and one never has to even look at a spots for these guys.  I
believe some software can also alarm station calls like the well know
SD,ND,MT, WYO guys.

2) Those who wish to remain SO, turn on the packet cluster and send
spots only.  Others will benefit from the spots.  Sending spots
doesn't change ones class to SOA.  CT and probably other programs have
the capability to turn off the received spot display.

Pardon me, if this all sounds wierd.  The prescribed morphine compound
is having effect.

The truth is out there.  We can choose to use faith, logic or illogic
to try and uncover it. I'd like to suggest we have seen these three
ways in these discussions.

73 de Brian/K3KO

  "Jim, K4QPL" wrote:
> 
> 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" <alsopb@gloryroad.net>
> To: "PVRCNC" <pvrcnc@mailman.qth.net>
> 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
> > PVRCNC@mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PVRCNC mailing list
> PVRCNC@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc