2017-03-31

Call Busts and Reverse Busts in CQ WW, 2008

This is the fourth in a series of posts on busts and reverse busts in the CQ WW contests. These posts are based on the augmented versions of the CQ WW public logs.

Prior posts in the series:

2008 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 EB1WW 5,394 178 3.3
2 ZW5B 5,861 125 2.1
3 OT5A 8,862 124 1.4
4 HG1S 5,588 111 2.0
5 YV4A 6,983 105 1.5
6 DF0HQ 9,883 101 1.0
7 TM1O 4,091 99 2.4
8 TC7KA 3,16696 3.0
9 PI4ZI 6,267 90 1.4
10 AO5B 4,696 85 1.8


2008 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 9,883 138 1.4
2 OG50F 2,796 135 4.8
3 GM2T 2,977 133 4.5
4 JR5VHU 4,988 97 1.9
5 WE3C 5,799 97 1.7
6 HB0/HB9AON 6,239 92 1.5
7 IZ6FXP 2,246 91 4.1
8 AO8A 10,86890 0.8
9 AM3SSB 6,150 85 1.4
10 SV9CVY 6,823 83 1.2


2008 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 UA3RJH 128 14.8
2 PV8DR 155 11.6
3 WA3RGH 131 11.5
4 BD3JC 105 11.4
5 NP3HM 109 11.0
6 UT0EO 302 10.3
7 UN7TW 103 9.7
8 LZ1PSH 1059.5
9 EA7HHV 101 8.9
10 EW8ZO 135 8.9


2008 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 BG1VCR 129 9.3
2 KB7TJP 133 9.0
3 G0VDZ 224 8.5
4 W9ZRX 285 8.4
5 M3PHP 101 7.9
6 PA2CVD 204 7.4
7 EA4ERZ 111 7.2
8 YU5M 8376.9
9 W8GOC 138 6.5
10 J43J 125 6.4



2008 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 HG1S 6,170 123 2.0
2 ZM1A 4,486 112 2.5
3 CT9L 11,609 109 0.9
4 EA8ZS 4,164 105 2.5
5 OT4A 2,615 104 4.0
6 RC3W 3,333 103 3.1
7 ZW5B 5,067 99 2.0
8 ZY7C 3,57294 2.6
9 UA3R 4,199 93 2.2
10 HC8N 13,811 92 0.7


2008 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 HA8FW 1,256 900 71.7
2 EE2W 9,429 396 4.2
3 Y03FFF 348 283 81.3
4 5K0T 5,677 271 4.8
5 DF0HQ 9,643 256 2.7
6 OG50F 5,879 213 3.6
7 L1TPY 222 188 84.7
8 5P3WW 4,625183 4.0
9 IR4X 6,844 163 2.4
10 G0ORH 1,354 147 10.9


In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as, in this table, for L1TPY, Y03FFF and HA8FW). 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 log.


2008 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 YU1ADO 268 20.5
2 UT5KL 144 18.8
3 WA2JQK 358 17.0
4 EA3AKA 130 16.9
5 EA4WD 205 16.1
6 UY7LM 300 14.7
7 IK3JBP 100 14.0
8 AB4SF 13013.8
9 XE1AY 261 13.4
10 VE2GHI 158 13.3


2008 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 L1TPY 222 84.7
2 Y03FFF 348 11.3
3 HA8FW 1,256 71.7
4 SO9R 140 17.9
5 B4VE 682 12.2
6 G0ORH 1,354 10.9
7 W4SEC 114 10.5
8 OS0S 13610.3
9 JS3CTQ 853 10.1
10 YB2DDL 113 9.7




2017-03-27

Long-Term RBN Reception of HF Beacons

Earlier, we derived a list of the top twenty HF beacon stations recorded by the RBN. We also determined, for each beacon station, which ten RBN posters have spotted it the most times.

This allows us to plot the signals from the beacons over the life (so far) of the RBN. For example:


This graph shows how the 4U1UN beacon on 14100 kHz has been received by the ten RBN stations that have spotted it the largest number of times. (As mentioned in earlier posts, RBN stations for which location data are not readily available from the RBN site are not included.)

To help understand this plot, some description is in order:
  1. Every spot by each of the ten RBN stations is plotted with a small open white circle (for the most part these aren't very obvious, since they overlap so much);
  2. The ordinate for each of the strip charts ranges between 0 dB and the value shown as FSD (i.e., full scale deflection) near the bottom right-hand corner; in this case, the maximum value of each strip is therefore 50 dB.
  3. The value plotted in this manner is the value denoted SNR by the RBN.  Remember that the RBN has an odd definition of SNR.
  4. The abscissa is divided into a number of bins of equal duration. In this and the other plots on this page, there are 100 such bins; because the duration covered by each plot is eight years, each bin therefore covers about one month.
  5. At the bottom of each strip chart is a coloured bar. Each bin is coloured so as to represent the total number of times that the RBN station spotted the beacon in the period covered by the bin. Thus, in this plot,  the short red bar near the start of the strip for WZ7I indicates that WZ7I spotted the 14100 kHz 4U1UN beacon about 3,000 times in the course of that month.
  6. For the period covered by each bin, a small purple rectangle represents the median value of the SNR over the duration of the bin. Thus, we can see that the median values for this beacon as recorded by SK3W consistently declined throughout the latter half of 2014.
  7. Also for the period covered by each bin, the inter-quartile range of the SNR at each RBN station is indicated by a short vertical blue line. Thus we can see that the inter-quartile range of signal strength at W3OA is consistently greater than the inter-quartile range at WZ7I and DJ9IE.
  8. The vertical order of the various RBN stations is determined solely by the chronological order in which each station first spotted the beacon.
Below are similar plots for the other 19 HF beacons we identified.




















There is (obviously) a lot to see on these plots.






2017-03-24

Call Busts and Reverse Busts in CQ WW, 2007

This is the third in a series of posts on busts and reverse busts in the CQ WW contests. These posts are based on the augmented versions of the CQ WW public logs.

Prior posts in the series:

2007 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 1A3A 12,609 143 1.1
2 6Y1V 11,635 130 1.1
3 OT5A 9,852 129 1.3
4 LZ9W 9,461 128 1.4
5 LS2D 4,076 117 2.9
6 EB1WW 4,842 107 2.2
7 T93J 8,768 106 1.2
8 SV9GPV 3,33494 2.8
9 OE2S 7,285 92 1.3
10 CQ9K 11,141 91 0.8


2007 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 CU2A 6,539 247 3.8
2 DF0HQ 11,507 192 1.7
3 G2B 2,274 183 8.0
4 GM2T 5,839 152 2.6
5 OE2S 7,285 152 2.1
6 HE70FG 1,597 145 9.1
7 1A3A 12,609 128 1.0
8 J42WT 1,685110 6.5
9 C50C 12,461 107 0.9
10 AO8A 12,793 103 0.8


2007 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 RW9UY 140 15.0
2 EA8MQ 140 12.1
3 K8OT 201 10.9
4 UA6HFI 130 10.8
5 W1YK 106 9.4
6 N3TXH 101 8.9
7 YO7MGG 254 8.7
8 RA9SC 3038.6
9 YO7LYM 117 8.5
10 EA8MQ 283 8.5


2007 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 TA2IK 558 16.8
2 AN5CNK 137 10.2
3 DG8YHO 266 9.8
4 HE70FG 1597 9.1
5 GM3YS 946 9.0
6 RW9UY 140 8.6
7 G2B 2274 8.0
8 DL8ZVG 1267.9
9 N3CHX 103 7.8
10 S58L 592 7.4


2007 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 EF8M 12,282 128 1.0
2 UT2II 1,825 108 5.9
3 J3A 10,171 106 1.0
4 ZY7C 5,726 105 1.8
5 RW3WWW 2,797 103 3.7
6 A71EM 4,583 100 2.2
7 HI3A 11,190 100 0.9
8 ED8A 9,89599 1.0
9 OT5P 2,616 97 3.7
10 HG1S 5,233 96 1.8


2007 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 5J0A 5,856 501 8.6
2 CN3A 5,593 206 3.7
3 EE2W 7,588 193 2.5
4 IR4X 7,776 186 2.4
5 DF0HQ 9,227 177 1.9
6 RW6HX 3,224 157 4.9
7 IH9M 2,830 153 5.4
8 9K2HN 5,128152 3.0
9 LU7HN 2,495 143 5.7
10 ED8A 9,895 141 1.4


2007 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 OH7YN 178 26.4
2 G4RKO 107 21.5
3 EA4WD 116 16.4
4 W7JI 191 15.2
5 ZS5NK 100 14.0
6 M5T 165 13.9
7 EA7OR 202 13.9
8 OH1BV 31113.8
9 IK2YXP 206 13.1
10 F5RQQ 140 12.9


2007 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 NQ3N 118 39.8
2 KD4HXT/6 153 15.7
3 K4GHS 312 11.5
4 K4DGW 100 11.0
5 NX2PX/W4 114 10.5
6 SN9U 614 9.9
7 IK8SEU 151 9.9
8 KI4TZ 1899.5
9 K3YG 114 8.8
10 LU5FZ/A 105 8.6

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as, in this table, for NQ3N). 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 log.


2017-03-20

New CQ WW CW Video maps

I have updated the set of CQ WW video maps on my youtube channel (channel N7DR). These video maps cover all the years for which public CQ WW CW logs are currently available (2005 to 2016). These maps are in addition to the SSB maps that were uploaded in January.

To access individual videos directly:


The videos are created with time steps of ten minutes; when playing the video, each time step is displayed for five seconds. The videos are presented as animated GIF files, so they should display correctly without any specialised video software installed on your computer.

The videos assume that all communication is via the great-circle short path route, and include only inter-zone contacts. The width of the arcs is an absolute measure of the number of QSOs taking place over that path in the particular 10-minute segment. The colour of the arc reflects the relative number of QSOs taking place over the path. Each separate image (i.e., 10-minute segment) is normalized so that the path with the greatest number of QSOs is rendered in white. Paths with fewer QSOs are in progressively darker colours. Thus, arc colour should not be compared from one still image to another; arc width, however, is meaningful. The width of an arc in pixels is one plus the natural logarithm of the number of QSOs represented by the arc.
 

2017-03-17

Why I Don't Use a Word Processor (3)

In the most recent post in this series, I described the programs that I use in place of a word processor. This time, as promised, I will begin to discuss exactly why I find these programs to be far more useful than a dedicated word processor.

There are two fundamental reasons for preferring programs other than word processors (as well as other, less basic reasons such as the general instability and frustrating clunkiness of word processors). These are: (i) clear separation between the processes of defining content and defining form; (ii) precise control over every part of every printed page. In this post I will look at the first of these.

Defining Content and Defining Form


In a modern word processor, there is no clear separation between the action of typing content and the action of determining how it will look on the page: as one types the story, one is continually aware of how the final page will look. This is not useful for at least two reasons: firstly, the look of the page continually distracts from the task at hand, which is the creation of the story; secondly, one loses a lot of context because the word processor displays a relatively small amount of text at a time.

To this second point, consider a manuscript that is being created for submission to an agent or a publisher. Professional submissions are expected to conform to typical industry expectations -- basically, the page is expected to look more or less as if it had come from a typewriter: double-spaced in a monospaced font, in accordance with certain expectations regarding layout and conventions to indicate changes of font. So as one types, one is faced with something that looks like this (the text is taken from the beginning of Reflexive Action):


Now, this is great for printing out on paper, and marking up changes. But it's pretty poor for typing a story:
  1. There's just not enough context visible (what did character X say fifteen lines ago? What colour did I say that wall was on the last page?). 
  2. Space is wasted, and the flow is interrupted, by the headline on each page.
  3. The conventions for changes in typeface (underline for italic, double underline for bold) mean that when the time comes to generate the final PDF for printing, every such change has to be converted to actual italic and boldface.
  4. Other conventions render the change from typescript format to ready-for-publication format unnecessarily difficult (for example, the first paragraph in each chapter in printed books is by convention not indented, whereas in a typescript it is indented).
This is certainly not to say that one can't use a word processor, but it's very difficult to make a professional-looking product without jumping through some hoops -- and writing is difficult enough already, without burdening oneself unnecessarily.

Here is the same text, rendered in the VEDIT PLUSprogram that I use:

Roughly twice as much text is immediately visible as one is working. Further, any good programming editor allows multiple independent split screens to be visible simultaneously, so that one can keep important text in full view on the screen. There are other advantages to such editors (such as in-context listing of all occurrences of a particular string, or lightning-fast search and replacement), but I find it hard to overestimate the usefulness of having so much text on the screen, especially if one maintains several independent panes open on different portions of the text, as I find myself doing.

Another advantage to using an editor is that the text is stored in a universal file format -- there is no chance of being unable to work on a book fifteen years later because one's word processing format is no longer fully supported by the current generation of products.

Really, though, all these are relatively minor in comparison to the huge advantage of eschewing word processors (although cumulatively I think that they add up to a pretty strong argument in favour of the approach I use) -- and that comes into play when it's time to create publication-quality output. Which brings us (next time) to the issue of defining form.

2017-03-13

Cleaned and Augmented Logs for CQ WW CW and SSB, 2005 to 2016

Now available are cleaned and augmented versions of the public logs for CQ WW CW and SSB for the period 2005 to 2016.

The cleaned logs are the result of processing the QSO: lines from the entrants' submitted Cabrillo files to ensure that all fields contain valid values and all the data match the format required in the rules. Any line containing illegal data in a field (for example, a zone number greater than 40, or a date/time stamp that is outside the contest period) has simply been removed. Also, only the QSO: lines are retained, so that each line in the file can be processed easily. The MD5 checksum for the file of cleaned logs is: 1b47059d1f2431b55d89a5eb954a05cc.

The augmented logs contain the same information as the cleaned logs, with the addition of some useful information on each line. The MD5 checksum for the file of augmented logs is: 0517add80a7d367ad7204f7e9ab6abe2. The information added to each line comprises:

  1. The letter "A" or "U" indicating "assisted" or "unassisted"
  2. A four-digit number representing the time if the contact in minutes measured from the start of the contest. (I realise that this can be calculated from the other information on the line, but it saves a lot of time to have the number readily available in the file without having to calculate it each time.)
  3. Band
  4. A set of eleven flags, each -- apart from column k -- encoded as T/F: 
    • a. QSO is confirmed by a log from the second party 
    • b. QSO is a reverse bust (i.e., the second party appears to have bust the call of the first party) 
    • c. QSO is an ordinary bust (i.e., the first party appears to have bust the call of the second party) 
    • d. the call of the second party is unique 
    • e. QSO appears to be a NIL 
    • f. QSO is with a station that did not send in a log, but who did make 20 or more QSOs in the contest 
    • g. QSO appears to be a country mult 
    • h. QSO appears to be a zone mult 
    • i. QSO is a zone bust (i.e., the received zone appears to be a bust)
    • j. QSO is a reverse zone bust (i.e. the second party appears to have bust the zone of the first party)
    • k. This entry has three possible values rather than just T/F:
      • T: QSO appears to be made during a run by the first party
      • F: QSO appears not to be made during a run by the first party
      • U: the run status is unknown because insufficient frequency information is available in the first party's log 
Note that the encoding of some of the flags requires subjective decisions to be made as to whether the flag should be true or false; consequently, and because CQ has yet to understand the importance of making their scoring code public, the value of a flag for a specific QSO line in some circumstances might not match the value that CQ would assign. (Also, CQ has more data available in the form of check logs, which are not made public.)

Note also that I made no attempt to deduce the run status of a QSO in the second party's log (if such exists), regardless of the status in the first party's log. This allows one cleanly to perform correct statistical analyses anent the number of QSOs made by running stations merely by excluding QSOs marked with a U in column k.

2017-03-10

Call Busts and Reverse Busts in CQ WW, 2006

This is the second in a series of posts on busts and reverse busts in the CQ WW contests. These posts are based on the augmented versions of the CQ WW public logs.

Prior posts in the series:

2006 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 PS2T 7,622 147 1.9
2 3DA0WW 4,756 119 2.5
3 3V6T 11,436 118 1.0
4 OT6A 9,621 116 1.2
5 EF8A 7,048 116 1.6
6 YV4A 8,779 115 1.3
7 EA8AH 10,029 113 1.1
8 XX9C 8,540102 1.2
9 6Y1V 6,083 94 1.5
10 V26B 11,280 91 0.8


2006 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 11,151 169 1.5
2 5B/AJ2O 8,002 159 2.0
3 CT3YA 10,227 134 1.3
4 DB0BKR 159 133 83.6
5 OE2S 6,429 114 1.8
6 HB0/HB9AON 6,598 111 1.7
7 EA8AH 10,029 104 1.0
8 GM2T 5,932104 1.8
9 TM2Y 6,689 104 1.6
10 RV6AWM 1,781 91 5.1

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as, in this table, for DB0BKR). 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 log.

2006 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 ER2BAF 106 18.9
2 W7JQ 205 13.7
3 EC2AFI 176 13.6
4 CO8AW 240 12.9
5 DL0NT 427 11.5
6 DO4WA 140 10.0
7 EC2ADT 217 9.7
8 YT6ZMG 1028.8
9 RK9ABJ 207 8.7
10 EA1BGV 350 8.3


2006 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 DB0BKR 159 83.6
2 SP3VSE 158 8.2
3 EC7ANB 123 8.1
4 WD5JNC 111 8.1
5 DL4KUG 112 8.0
6 IK2YSJ 252 7.9
7 YO3CDN 101 7.9
8 WA4OAB 1027.8
9 PA2CVD 167 7.8
10 UX8IXX 116 7.8



2006 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 TI3TLS 2,899 130 4.5
2 AD4TR 738 127 17.2
3 R7C 5,174 126 2.4
4 9Y4AA 11,842 109 0.9
5 CT9L 11,752 105 0.9
6 HG3DX 6,363 104 1.6
7 RW3WWW 1,841 104 5.6
8 TZ5A 15,152102 0.7
9 EA8EW 12,836 95 0.7
10 OT4A 1,997 95 4.8


2006 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 IH9P 15,210 536 3.5
2 5A7A 18,406 209 1.1
3 EA8EW 12,836 198 1.5
4 EG5T 4,390 192 4.4
5 BG0AAI 298 189 63.4
6 OM8A 6,126 188 3.1
7 XE1NTT/2 3,654 188 5.1
8 V47NT 7,440176 2.4
9 DF0HQ 10,135 166 1.6
10 DR1A 9,719 164 1.7


2006 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 RW9CW 416 20.4
2 WF5W 325 19.1
3 OX3JZ 306 19.0
4 AD4TR 738 17.2
5 W7JI 145 16.6
6 ZL1ANH 110 15.5
7 SM3AF 175 14.3
8 EA2NA 25814.0
9 JA0AOQ 196 13.8
10 EA6BB 134 13.4


2006 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 BG0AAI 298 63.4
2 HA505BA 660 20.8
3 YO7HHI 804 18.3
4 RV9YK 525 13.7
5 RV9UB 175 10.3
6 G0AZS 157 10.2
7 JA5CQH/4 157 9.6
8 EA5DYB 5039.1
9 JS3CTQ 1,645 8.9
10 KK4SI 110 8.2






2017-03-06

RBN reception of HF Beacons

Earlier, we derived a list of the top twenty HF beacon stations recorded by the RBN.

Here are the stations, with the best geographic information I could find added:


Position Station Frequency (kHz) Grid Latitude Longitude
1 I1MMR 7026 JN44kk 44.457402 8.902236
2 I1MMR 7027 JN44kk 44.457402 8.902236
3 4U1UN 14100 FN30as 40.750075 -73.967208
4 AA1K 1821 FM29ga 39.011430 -75.500000
5 SK6RUD 10133 JO67ki 57.356076 12.878819
6 4X6TU 14100 KM72jc 32.107111 34.795890
7 DK0WCY 10144 JO44vq 54.68941 9.795486
8 W9ZN 7034EN61fs 41.772743 -87.537847
9 W0ERE/B 10129 EM36iv 36.891279 -93.262567
10 W0ERE 10129 EM36iv 36.891279 -93.262567
11 EW7LO 7008 KO43me 53.200629 29.008895
12 4X6TU 21150 KM72jc 32.107111 34.795890
13 IK1HGI/B 7039 JN45jk 45.417208 8.774747
14 YV5B 14100 FK60nj 10.397743 -66.871181
15 DJ6UX 7037 JO53ao 53.6201542 10.0799943
16 DK0WCY 3579 JO44vq 54.68941 9.795486
17 DK7JI 7011 JO31lc 51.107942 6.943937
18 IK4VFD 7027 JN54ct 44.811667 10.206667
19 4X6TU 18110 KM72jc 32.107111 34.795890
20 CT1ZQ 7010 IN51ti 41.3592673 -8.3505874


For each of these stations, we can easily see which RBN posters have posted them the largest number of times over the lifetime of the RBN. The table below lists the ten RBN stations that have posted each of the twenty beacons the most times (RBN stations for which the geographic information is not readily available from the RBN site are not included). The order of the RBN stations is as one would expect: reading the ten stations from left to right and top to bottom, the RBN station that posted the beacons the most times comes first, the next RBN station is to its right, etc. Beneath each RBN station is the length of the direct short path between the poster and the beacon (in kilometers, with a green background).


Position Station kHz RBN RBN RBN RBN RBN
1 I1MMR 7026 TF3Y KM3T WZ7I GW8IZR SK3W
2,907 6,208 6,596 1,382 1,836
LA5EKA AA4VV EI6IZ W4KKN W3LPL
1,666 7,262 1,683 6,881 6,805
2 I1MMR 7027 K1TTT WZ7I SM6FMB OH6BG GW8IZR
6,326 6,596 1,473 2,209 1,382
W8WTS W8WWV W3LPL TF3Y SV8RV
6,951 6,954 6,805 2,907 1,245
3 4U1UN 14100 WZ7I KO7SS DF4UE ON5KQ KM3T
108 3,387 6,312 5,810 297
SK3W W3OA DJ9IE WA7LNW W5MEL
6,203 844 6,073 3,414 2,136
4 AA1K 1821 KM3T W8WTS K8ND K1TTT W4KKN
529 554 669 434 191
AA4VV NY3A KQ8M W8WWV WZ7I
554 138 573 573 159
5 SK6RUD 10133 ON5KQ DR1A DQ8Z DF4UE GW8IZR
968 766 766 989 1,177
DF7GB OH6BG DJ9IE HA6M HB9DCO
879 781 726 1,180 1,154
6 4X6TU 14100 SK3W SE0X OH6BG DF4UE ON5KQ
3,402 3,256 3,564 2,809 3,312
DL9GTB DJ9IE HA6PX SE5E VE2WU
2,985 3,080 2,180 3,362 8,836
7 DK0WCY 10144 ON5KQ OH6BG DF4UE DQ8Z HB9DCO
625 1,134 666 431 815
HA6M HA6PX DR1A DF7GB KM3T
1,032 1,007 414 538 5,769
8 W9ZN 7034 K1TTT WZ7I NC7J KM3T WA7LNW
1,193 1,047 2,042 1,309 2,279
N7TR W4KKN W8WTS KQ8M AA4VV
2,730 904 525 515 908
9 W0ERE/B 10129 AA4VV WZ7I NC7J NO1D KM3T
1,163 1,616 1,688 1,746 1,950
K9IMM KS4XQ WA7LNW WB6BEE WE9V
727 984 1,794 1,219 768
10 W0ERE 10129 WA7LNW KM3T N0TA N4ZR WZ7I
1,794 1,950 1,091 1,361 1,616
W3OA AA4VV WE9V W3LPL W4DJW
1,109 1,163 768 1,438 1,007
11 EW7LO 7008 IK3STG GW8IZR SK3W LA5EKA DK9IP
1,505 2,203 1,083 1,337 1,508
OH6BG DF7GB DL1EMY HA6PX S50ARX
1,177 1,479 1,545 857 1,372
12 4X6TU 21150 SE0X ON5KQ DF4UE OH6BG DL9GTB
3,256 3,312 2,809 3,564 2,985
DJ9IE HA6PX HB9DCO VU2PTT DQ8Z
3,080 2,180 2,868 4,841 2,959
13 IK1HGI/B 7039 HA1VHF HA2KSD DK9IP OE6TZE ON5KQ
626 726 395 539 724
DF7GB SK3W DJ9IE HB9DCO HA6PX
507 1,736 685 251 893
14 YV5B 14100 KM3T WZ7I W3OA SK3W ON5KQ
3,632 3,436 3,139 8,654 7,714
DF4UE OH6BG KO7SS DJ9IE SE0X
8,137 8,888 5,108 8,043 8,739
15 DJ6UX 7037 DF7GB DK9IP SK3W DL8LAS ON5KQ
428 531 844 67 569
DL2CC HA6PX OH6BG S50ARX DR1A
570 916 1,229 892 342
16 DK0WCY 3579 SK3W DL8LAS DL9GTB ON5KQ DF7GB
748 64 218 625 538
ES5PC LA5EKA DJ9IE HA6PX OH6BG
1,104 527 376 1,007 1,134
17 DK7JI 7011 IK3STG OE6TZE SK3W GW8IZR DK0TE
732 770 1,189 811 427
HA2KSD F6IIT HB9DCO SE0X HA1VHF
914 686 403 1,149 818
18 IK4VFD 7027 DK9IP IK3STG HA6PX S50ARX GW8IZR
481 150 823 291 1,421
OL5Q SK3W DF7GB DL8LAS DL1EMY
680 1,775 592 1,045 758
19 4X6TU 18110 OH6BG DF4UE ON5KQ DJ9IE DL9GTB
3,564 2,809 3,312 3,080 2,985
HA6PX VU2PTT DQ8Z KM3T HB9BXE
2,180 4,841 2,959 8,823 2,788
20 CT1ZQ 7010 GW8IZR IK3STG DK9IP K1TTT WZ7I
1,364 1,694 1,558 5,222 5,471
DL1EMY SK3W EI6IZ TF3Y DF7GB
1,573 2,712 1,389 2,678 1,595


2017-03-03

Call Busts and Reverse Busts in CQ WW, 2005

The availability of augmented versions of the CQ WW public logs makes many interesting analyses rather simple.

One obvious example is a listing of the stations with the largest number and percentage of busted calls and reverse busts (i.e., calls that were busted by others).

Below are the results for the first year for which public logs are available, 2005.


2005 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 CT3YA 13,104 303 2.3
2 YV4A 8,304 110 1.3
3 OT5A 9,710 103 1.1
4 EA8ZS 4,005 102 2.5
5 EX0M 3,551 100 2.8
6 3V5A 9,157 99 1.1
7 MD4K 9,473 97 1.0
8 PS2T 7,61293 1.2
9 HG3M 3,409 92 2.7
10 EI7M 6,584 88 1.3


2005 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 OH5BM 4,158 1,904 45.8
2 DF0CG 10,232 132 1.3
3 DQ0Q 10,060 131 1.3
4 IS0/DL3EW 5,773 130 2.3
5 CT3YA 13,104 122 0.9
6 HB0/HB9AON 6,005 108 1.8
7 TM2Y 4,874 104 2.1
8 4X1DX 3,955102 2.6
9 NN3W 2,355 101 4.3
10 S580A 1,087 94 8.6

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as, in this table, for OH5BM). 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 log.

2005 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 EA1BGV 185 14.6
2 RK3WWA 249 14.5
3 EA7BGR 124 12.1
4 DH6BH 170 10.0
5 SQ3GNA 189 9.0
6 LY5CAB 156 9.0
7 PY2SF 137 8.8
8 SP5WLV 1078.4
9 PR7AR 109 8.3
10 K7LV 122 8.2


2005 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 OH5BM 4,185 45.8
2 JQ1NGT 513 12.1
3 DK3W 138 10.9
4 S580A 1,087 8.6
5 PI60HQ 774 8.1
6 PH3BDJ 251 8.0
7 DJ2ZS 270 7.0
8 PI60AZL 1007.0
9 S55Z 101 6.9
10 K2UG 540 6.7



2005 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 PZ5C 6,246 142 2.3
2 B1Z 3,879 125 3.2
3 DL2F 2,175 110 5.1
4 HC8N 15,823 107 0.7
5 PJ2T 12,527 100 0.8
6 OT5P 2,271 96 4.2
7 YT1W 2,340 95 4.1
8 UP5G 6,61694 1.4
9 YV5KG 1,284 93 7.2
10 YT6A 8,080 88 1.1


2005 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 5J1W 7,029 632 9.0
2 IH9P 10,704 366 3.4
3 YT6A 8,080 238 2.9
4 5B/AJ2O 5,612 179 3.2
5 F6KHM 3,717 175 4.7
6 CT8T 5,622 162 2.9
7 V26K 5,596 143 2.6
8 RX4HZ 4,063142 3.5
9 DP9A 6,221 136 2.2
10 IR4X 6,837 129 1.9


2005 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Busts
1 AA7PM 105 17.1
2 K4OH 127 16.5
3 W1BIH 107 15.0
4 OM4AMA 150 14.0
5 K7TR 131 13.7
6 OM3CHL 188 12.2
7 S58RU 473 11.8
8 VA3AVP 14411.8
9 SQ3GNA 111 11.7
10 RA9WV 299 11.7


2005 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 YO7HHI 300 17.3
2 SP5DIR/5 127 16.5
3 SA25RO 201 14.4
4 JA1GS 108 12.0
5 JS3CTQ 174 10.9
6 F5SDD 190 9.5
7 5J1W 7,029 9.0
8 EA7EYQ 1048.7
9 SP3CDQ 200 8.5
10 WA4GLH 106 8.5