2020-02-05

Busting Calls: CQ WW 2019

Prior posts in this series:
Throughout this post, I apply the procedures developed in the second post above.

For the purpose of this post, only verified QSOs are counted.

Lowest Probability

I begin with an ordered list of the stations with the lowest probabilities of busting a call in 2019 CQ WW SSB.

2019 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DL7URH 0.0008 1,125 0
2 DF2RG 0.0009 1,037 0
3 K0KX 0.0011 840 0
4 G4PVM 0.0012 819 0
5 N4PQX 0.0012 779 0
6 WA2FZB 0.0012 774 0
7 K3WJV 0.0013741 0
8 N3ZA 0.0014 703 0
9 DL1MHJ 0.0014 682 0
10 G4IIY 0.0017 579 0

And for 2019 CQ WW CW:

2019 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 YU1RA 0.0006 1,515 0
2 K0KX 0.0007 1,387 0
3 RT3N 0.0008 1,236 0
4 UA3QPA 0.0008 1,204 0
5 W3KB 0.0008 1,179 0
6 N2GC 0.0008 1,168 0
7 VO2AC 0.0008 1,154 0
8 SQ8N 0.0008 1,118 0
9 YO8DOH 0.0009 1,104 0
10 OM6RM 0.0009 1,064 0

Well done to K0KX for appearing (and appearing near the top) of both tables.

It is interesting to plot the aggregated probability function for $p_{bust}$, weighted by the number of verified QSOs, $Q_v$, for all stations:

In case it isn't clear, the location of the solid vertical lines represent the weighted means of the probability curves.

We can limit the analysis to calling stations (i.e., not the running station).

2019 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DL7URH 0.0009 1,041 0
2 DF2RG 0.0009 1,017 0
3 K0KX 0.0012 819 0
4 G4PVM 0.0012 814 0
5 G3TXF 0.0012 782 0
6 N4PQX 0.0013 745 0
7 K3WJV 0.0013 735 0
8 I2WIJ 0.0013 715 0
9 WA2FZB 0.0013 713 0
10 OK6Y 0.0014 709 0

2019 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 IR4X 0.0005 1,762 0
2 UT4U 0.0006 1,612 0
3 RT4M 0.0006 1,452 0
4 K0KX 0.0009 1,103 0
5 K3PH 0.0009 1,094 0
6 K1AR 0.0009 1,075 0
7 YO4NF 0.0009 1,075 0
8 LA4C 0.0009 1,074 0
9 RG5A 0.0009 1,062 0
10 AA9A 0.0009 1,058 0

And similarly for running stations.

2019 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DG5MLA 0.0020 482 0
2 K6XX 0.0022 439 0
3 OG7A 0.0023 1,759 3
4 S58Y 0.0024 847 1
5 M0BJL 0.0024 409 0
6 9A2EU 0.0026 374 0
7 DM4X 0.0027 2,183 5
8 PT2AW 0.0029 333 0
9 N4BP 0.0030 330 0
10 IR4M 0.0030 4,042 11

2019 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 G4IIY 0.0007 1,369 0
2 YU1RA 0.0007 1,267 0
3 VO2AC 0.0012 825 0
4 LY5W 0.0014 697 0
5 OQ5M 0.0014 2,129 2
6 BY8MA 0.0016 596 0
7 DL6KWN 0.0016 589 0
8 N3RS 0.0017 1,815 2
9 V55A 0.0017 4,184 6
10 K3PH 0.0018 1,113 1

We can also look at the changes over the period from 2005 to 2019.

First for all QSOs:

Then for calling stations:

And for running stations:

I think it's also interesting to see who appears to have the lowest probability of busting  a call over an extended period. So, for the last ten years:

2010--2019 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 JM1NKT 0.0007 3,040 1
2 NW0M 0.0007 2,875 1
3 KV1J 0.0008 3,851 2
4 WA1ZYX 0.0008 1,196 0
5 NB3C 0.0009 1,066 0
6 IK4OMU 0.0009 1,039 0
7 OK2VWB 0.0009 1,023 0
8 AA1BU 0.0009 1,017 0
9 LY3CY 0.0009 5,333 4
10 ES2MC 0.0009 4,223 3

2010--2019 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 NW0M 0.0003 2,661 0
2 DJ1YFK 0.0004 2,150 0
3 JA1QOW 0.0004 4,774 1
4 HL1VAU 0.0004 4,718 1
5 KM3T 0.0005 1,826 0
6 EU4E 0.0005 3,715 1
7 WB4TDH 0.0006 5,230 2
8 R7MY 0.0006 3,266 1
9 VX7SZ 0.0006 1,491 0
10 UA3QPA 0.0007 3,095 1

Congratulations are definitely due to NW0M for that effort.

Highest Probability

We can also look at the calls associated with the highest probability of busting calls in either the forward or the reverse direction:

2019 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 CN3A 9,554 195 2.0
2 EF8R 11,853 195 1.6
3 V26B 6,928 160 2.3
4 HI3LT 4,756 159 3.3
5 IR7T 5,878 152 2.6
6 PR4T 4,447 146 3.3
7 ED1R 6,409 132 2.1
8 LZ9W 8,457 130 1.5
9 ZF1A 5,986 128 2.1
10 OT5A 5,595 121 2.2

2019 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 9A/AI6V 1,833 263 14.3
2 EF8R 14,040 212 1.5
3 CN3A 11,458 168 1.5
4 JT5DX 6,338 161 2.5
5 NP2P 3,908 147 3.8
6 PZ5W 7,468 140 1.9
7 E7DX 6,794 129 1.9
8 ZW8T 1,276 127 10.0
9 F6KOP 4,745 125 2.6
10 TK0C 8,221 124 1.5

2019 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 RQ2K 177 28 15.8
2 YB2BNN 257 39 15.2
3 OH1POR 140 20 14.3
4 EA4GWL 296 39 13.2
5 DO1GMW 100 13 13.0
6 OZ0QF 138 17 12.3
7 K6DBS 140 16 11.4
9 YB7WW 151 17 11.3
10 OK2BOZ 117 13 11.1

2019 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 LZ1BY 203 41 20.2
2 W4IT 302 57 18.9
3 K1EEE 132 24 18.2
4 K4KAY 143 26 18.2
5 TF3EO 151 27 17.9
6 W6SFG 175 30 17.1
7 K7TRF 133 22 16.5
8 VA3ZNW 110 18 16.4
9 OZ5KU 110 18 16.4
10 UV2IM 123 20 16.3

2019 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 PR4T 4,447 336 7.6
2 EF8R 11,853 190 1.6
3 DF0HQ 7,267 186 2.6
4 HC0E 2,413 145 6.0
5 FY5KE 7,209 130 1.8
6 TM3R 4,494 118 2.6
7 ED7W 2,747 118 4.3
8 RO2E 3,262 117 3.6
9 HI3LT 4,756 112 2.4
10 IO5O 4,592 110 2.4

2019 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 HG5A 3,914 503 12.9
2 JS3CTQ 2,390 296 12.4
3 DF0HQ 8,553 281 3.3
4 IS0SWW 5,141 273 5.3
5 EF8R 14,040 263 1.9
6 4U25B 2,599 245 9.4
7 DR4A 6,589 220 3.3
8 RM9A 8,611 191 2.2
9 CN3A 11,458 190 1.7
10 ES9C 6,858 186 2.7

2010--2019 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 LZ9W 85,297 1,486 1.7
2 CN3A 88,174 1,460 1.7
3 OT5A 69,012 1,350 2.0
4 PJ2T 71,872 1,339 1.9
5 A73A 65,680 1,281 2.0
6 EF8R 62,099 1,045 1.7
7 V26B 60,324 964 1.6
8 HG7T 57,597 831 1.4
9 D4C 58,631 806 1.4
10 RT6A 44,900 783 1.7

2010--2019 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 PJ2T 94,865 1,311 1.4
2 LZ9W 99,126 1,226 1.2
4 PI4CC 50,515 977 1.9
5 D4C 64,411 860 1.3
6 9A1A 104,579 832 0.8
7 ZW8T 11,510 822 7.1
8 RW0A 50,926 808 1.6
9 PJ4A 71,047 803 1.1
10 JA3YBK 55,320 765 1.4

2010--2019 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
2 K2JMY 2,062 305 14.8
3 EA7JQT 572 71 12.4
4 PU1MMZ 544 62 11.4
5 EA1HTF 1,389 153 11.0
6 PU2TRX 868 94 10.8
7 EA4GWL 686 71 10.3
8 YB9KA 557 56 10.1
9 LU6DCN 604 57 9.4
10 E20WXA 650 61 9.4

2010--2019 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 W2UDT 811 167 20.6
2 4Z5FW 527 108 20.5
3 BD3MV 1,091 217 19.9
4 DJ5UZ 766 135 17.6
5 YO7LYM 1,711 291 17.0
6 JA3AHY 554 92 16.6
7 WP3Y 570 93 16.3
8 AE3D 1,016 161 15.8
9 YU1NIM 619 98 15.8
10 IK0YUO 558 83 14.9

2010--2019 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 79,637 2,309 2.9
2 JA3YBK 40,441 1,286 3.2
3 K3LR 69,289 1,062 1.5
4 CN2R 55,540 956 1.7
5 CN3A 88,174 921 1.0
6 WE3C 32,201 876 2.7
7 IK2YCW 26,491 857 3.2
8 EF8R 62,099 823 1.3
9 W3LPL 53,188 814 1.5
10 GM2T 38,631 802 2.1

2010--2019 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 JS3CTQ 25,282 3,215 12.7
2 DF0HQ 88,116 3,100 3.5
3 ES9C 66,020 2,020 3.1
4 W2FU 56,534 1,489 2.6
5 K3LR 75,096 1,451 1.9
6 DR1A 47,148 1,280 2.7
7 HG7T 62,301 1,270 2.0
8 IR4X 45,823 1,255 2.7
9 NR4M 55,964 1,253 2.2
10 DR4A 50,977 1,240 2.4

2010--2019 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 CW90A 1,370 30.9
2 BA8AG 752 16.4
3 BW2/KU1CW 940 12.3
4 OG60F 4,258 11.4
5 ZP6DYA 1,226 11.3
6 V84SCQ 806 10.5
7 LU9DDJ 701 10.4
8 BV55D 919 10.2
9 JG3SVP 1,270 10.1
10 PP5BS 895 9.5

2010--2019 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 RZ3VO 892 100.0
2 G3RWF 943 99.9
3 YT65A 1,149 37.2
4 5K0A 1,853 32.1
5 PE75W 1,408 29.3
6 OG55W 3,265 28.6
7 DP65HSC 516 16.9
8 5J1E 1,523 15.6
9 SB0A 1,102 15.5
10 K3HW 1,044 14.9

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as, in the last table, for RZ3VO and G3RWF). This is generally caused by a discrepancy between the call actually sent by the listed station and the one recorded as being sent in at least some QSOs in the station's log.

2020-01-30

Continent-Based Analyses from 2019 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

In addition to zone-based analyses, we can perform similar analyses based on continent rather than zone using the various public CQ WW logs (cq-ww-2005--2019-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2019.

Continent Pairs

We start by looking at the number of QSOs for pairs of continents from the contests for 2019.

The procedure is simple. We consider only QSOs that meet the following criteria:
1. marked as "two-way" QSOs (i.e., both parties submitted a log containing the QSO);
2. no callsign or zone is bust by either party.
A counter is maintained for every possible pair of continents and the pertinent counter is incremented once for each distinct QSO between stations in those continents.

Separate figures are provided below for each band, led by a figure integrating QSOs on all bands. The figures are constructed in such a way as to show the results for both the SSB and CW contests on a single figure. (Any pair of continents with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.)

Continents and Distance

Below is a series of figures showing the distribution of distance for QSOs as a function of continent.

Each plot shows a colour-coded distribution of the distance of QSOs for each continent, with the data for SSB appearing above the data for CW within each continent.

For every half-QSO in a given continent, the distance of the QSO is calculated; in ths way, the total  number of half-QSOs in bins of width 500 km is accumulated. Once all the QSOs for a particular contest have been binned in this manner, the distribution for each continent is normalised to total 100% and the result coded by colour and plotted. The mean distance for each continent and mode is denoted by a small white rectangle added to the underlying distance distribution. The 99% confidence range of the value of mean is marked by a small blue rectangle (typically entirely subsumed by the white rectangle). The median is marked with a vertical brown rectangle.

As usual, only QSOs for which logs have been provided by both parties, and which show no bust of either callsign or zone number are included. Bins coloured black are those for which no QSOs are present at the relevant distance.

The resulting plots are reproduced below.

Half-QSOs Per Continent, 2005 to 2019

A simple way to display the activity in the CQ WW contests is to count the number of half-QSOs in each continent (a single QSO contains two half-QSOs, so a single QSO may contain two different continents or the same continent twice). We count half QSOs, making sure to include each valid QSO only once (that is, if the same QSO appears in two submitted logs, it is counted only once).

If we do this for the entire contest without taking the individual bands into account, we obtain this figure:

The plot shows data for both SSB and CW contests over the period from 2005 to 2019. I include only QSOs for which both parties submitted a log and neither party bust either the zone or the call of the other party. The black triangles represent contests in which no half-QSOs were made from (or to) a particular continent. We can, of course, generate equivalent plots on a band-by-band basis:

As in prior years, the activity from EU so overwhelms these figures that in order to get a feel for the activity elsewhere, we need to move to a logarithmic scale:

Intra-Continental QSOs

We can also easily look at the percentage of QSOs that are between two stations on the same continent, and in particular between two EU stations:

So, for example, in CQ WW CW in 2019, a little over 30% of QSOs were within the same continent; about 24% of QSOs -- nearly a quarter -- were between two European stations. Yet, judging from the name, which is "CQ World Wide DX Contest", this is supposed to be a world-wide DX contest, not a European QSO party.

Flogging a dead horse, on 160m fully 50% of QSOs were between two European stations.

2020-01-29

Zone-Based Analyses from 2019 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

A huge number of analyses can be performed with the various public CQ WW logs (cq-ww-2005--2019-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2019.

As usual, there follow a few analyses that interest me. There is, of course, plenty of scope to use the files for further analyses.

Below are some simple zone-based analyses from the logs.

Zones and Distance

As in prior years, we can examine the distribution of distance for QSOs as a function of zone.

Below is a series of figures showing this distribution integrated over all bands and, separately, band by band for the CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW contests for 2019.

Each plot shows a colour-coded distribution of the distance of QSOs for each zone, with the data for SSB appearing above the data for CW within each zone.

For every half-QSO in a given zone, the distance of the QSO is calculated; in ths way, the total  number of half-QSOs in bins of width 500 km is accumulated. Once all the QSOs for a particular contest have been binned in this manner, the distribution for each zone is normalised to total 100% and the result coded by colour and plotted. The mean distance for each zone and mode is denoted by a small white rectangle added to the underlying distance distribution.

Only QSOs for which logs have been provided by both parties, and which show no bust of either callsign or zone number are included. Bins coloured black are those for which no QSOs are present at the relevant distance.

The resulting plots are reproduced below. I find that they display in a compact format a wealth of data that is informative and often unexpected.

Zone Pairs

As in prior years, We can examine the number of QSOs for pairs of zones from the 2019 contests using the augmented file.

The procedure is simple. We consider only QSOs that meet the following criteria:
1. marked as "two-way" QSOs (i.e., both parties submitted a log containing the QSO);
2. no callsign or zone is bust by either party.
A counter is maintained for every pair of zones (i.e., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 ... 40-39, 40-40) and the pertinent counter is incremented once for each distinct QSO between stations in those zones.

Separate figures are provided for each band, led by a figure integrating QSOs on all bands. The figures are constructed in such a way as to show the results for both the SSB and CW contests on a single figure. (Any zone pair with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.)

It is clear from these figures, as from those for earlier years, that CQ WW is principally a contest for intra-EU QSOs, and secondarily one for QSOs between EU and the East Coast of North America. This format is undoubtedly popular, as CQ WW, in both its SSB and CW incarnations, would seem by any measure to be the most popular contest of the year. But one does wonder whether there isn't some other format that would strongly encourage participation from other parts of the world, instead of concentrating on these limited areas.

Non-Zero Zone Pairs

The activity between pairs of zones in the CW and SSB CQ WW contests over the period from 2005 to 2019 may be usefully summarised in a single figure:

There are 820 possible zone pairs: (z1, z1), (z1, z2) ... (z1, z40), (z2, z2), (z2, z3) ... (z39, z39), (z39, z40), (z40, z40). The above figure shows the number of different zone pairs actually present in the public logs, for each mode and for each year for which data are available, separated on a band-by-band basis and presented in the form of percentages of the maximum possible count (i.e., 820).

The top two lines require some additional explication: the line marked "MEAN" is the arithmetic mean of the results for the six separate bands for the relevant year and mode. The line marked "ANY" is also constructed from the data for the individual bands, but such that any give zone pair need be present on any one (or more, of course) of the individual bands to be included on the "ANY" line.

Half-QSOs Per Zone for CQ WW CW and SSB, 2005 to 2019

A simple way to display the activity in the CQ WW contests is to count the number of half-QSOs in each zone. Each valid QSO requires the exchange of two zones, so we simply count the total number of times that each zone appears, making sure to include each valid QSO only once.

If we do this for the entire contest without taking the individual bands into account, we obtain this figure:

The plot shows data for both SSB and CW contests over the period from 2005 to 2019. As in earlier posts, I include only QSOs for which both parties submitted a log and neither party bust either the zone or the call of the other party. The black triangles represent contests in which no half-QSOs were made from (or to) a particular zone. By far the most striking feature of this plot is the way in which activity in EU overwhelms that in the rest of the world.

We can, of course, generate equivalent plots on a band-by-band basis:

The activity from zones 14, 15 and 16 so overwhelms these figures that in order to get a feel for the activity elsewhere, we need to move to a logarithmic scale:

The figures speak for themselves.