Auroral buzz

VA2BBW sent me this file, recorded by him during an SKCC QSO with me on 10m. The QSO took place on 2023-09-25 at 1353z, while Ante was operating as VC3K/VE2 in the SKCC Canadian Straight Key Month event. Normally, 10m is yet to open here at that time, but VA2BBW was a solid S5 here in Colorado, while he gave me an honest 599.

I believe that the QSO was enabled by a burst of auroral activity; the aurora was probably being modulated by the North American electric grid at 60Hz; as we can see from this spectrum plot (taken from the elongated dah in the "d" of "de") the raspy buzz is clearly due to 60Hz modulation.

This is the first time I have heard such a manifestation; normally, auroral QSOs that I have heard display distinct widening of the signal, along with blurring of the individual CW elements as different parts of the auroral region move around at different speeds.

Or to sum it all up in three words: radio is magic.

CQ WPX logs for 2023

CQ WPX SSB and CW logs for 2023 have been added to this repository of public CQ WPX logs.

 

Unofficial Station Reports, ARRL DX SSB and CW, 2018 to 2023

 

Using the public logs, it is rather easy to generate unofficial station-by-station reports for the entrants in the ARRL DX contests.

The ARRL generates official reports and generally makes these reports available individually to each entrant. But these are not made public. The unofficial reports, while not necessarily identical to the official ones, may therefore hold some interest.

The unofficial reports may differ from the official ones because the contest committee has access to checklogs, which are not made public. Also, there are various pathological occurrences in logs that require a decision to be made as to how to classify one or more QSOs; the rules by which such decisions are made are not public, so the decisions that I made when constructing the unofficial reports may well be different from those made by the ARRL. Nevertheless, pathological logs (or pathological QSOs within a log) are relatively rare, so these decisions should affect a relatively small percentage of logs and QSOs. (Typical examples [there are many more] of circumstances in which decisions must made be are: by how much may clocks be skewed and a QSO still be considered valid? what to do if the transmitted callsign changes for some number of QSOs in the contest? what do to if more than one entrant claims to have used the same transmitted callsign?)

The complete set of unofficial reports for the CW and SSB versions of the ARRL DX contest for the years 2018 to 2023 may be found in appropriately named files in this directory.

I note that despite explicitly informing me in 2017 that they would do so, the ARRL have never made public the logs that they hold for the ARRL DX contests for years prior to 2018.

One note regarding interpretation of the information in these unofficial reports: all the fields should be self-explanatory, except that in the listing for EXCHANGE BUSTS, some values are enclosed in parentheses: this indicates that the worked station did not submit a log, and the value of the exchange sent by that station was deduced from QSO: lines in the logs of other entrants.

For example, the report for HL2ZN in the 2021 ARRL DX CW contest contains the line (the line below may be wrapped on your display):

QSO: 14000 CW 2021-02-21 2245 HL2ZN         599 0500   N7DR          599 KY      [ (CO) ]

This indicates that we can deduce that HL2ZN probably bust N7DR's exchange, even though N7DR did not send in a log: HL2ZN recorded N7DR's state as KY, even though N7DR probably sent CO (indeed, I did send CO).

Cleaned and Augmented Logs for ARRL DX CW and SSB contests, 2018 to 2023

 

Cleaned Logs

Cleaned logs for the years 2018 to 2023 may be downloaded from this directory. The cleaned logs are combined into a single file; but data for individual stations and years may be extracted trivially from the combined file.

The cleaned logs are the result of processing the QSO: lines from the entrants' submitted Cabrillo files (as [gratuitously] modified by the ARRL) to ensure that all fields contain valid values and all the data match the column-specific standard format for this contest.

Any line containing illegal data in a field has simply been removed. Also, only the QSO: lines are retained, so that each line in the file can be processed easily. All QTH multipliers are rendered as two letters, and the power is rendered as four digits, regardless of how the submitted log recorded these two fields; this should simplify processing the logs by scripts or programs, as should the use of fixed-length records in these cleaned files.

Augmented Logs

Links to augmented logs for the same years may likewise be downloaded from the same directory. The augmented logs are combined into a single file; but data for individual stations and years may be extracted trivially from the combined file.

The augmented logs for the ARRL DX contests contain the same information as the cleaned logs, but with the addition of some useful (derived) information on each line. The information added to each line comprises:

1. The sequence of four characters that are the same for each entry in a particular log:
•  a. letter "A" or "U" indicating "assisted" or "unassisted"
•  b. letter "Q", "L", "H" or "U", indicating respectively QRP, low power, high power or unknown power level
•  c. letter "S", "M", "C" or "U", indicating respectively a single-operator, multi-operator, checklog or unknown operator category 
•  d. character "1", "2", "+" or "U", indicating respectively that the number of transmitters is one, two, unlimited or unknown
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 subsequent processors of the file considerable time to have the number readily available in the file without having to calculate it each time.)
3. Band
4. A set of fourteen flags, each -- apart from column k and column n -- 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 (may be T for W/VE stations only)
   • h. QSO appears to be a state/province mult (may be T for DX stations only)
   • i. QSO is an exchange bust (i.e., the received exchange appears to be a bust)
   • j. QSO is a reverse exchange bust (i.e. the second party appears to have bust the exchange 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
   • l. QSO is a dupe
   • m. QSO is a dupe in the second party's log
   • n. RBN information (see below)
5. If the QSO is a reverse bust, the call logged by the second party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
6. If the QSO is an ordinary bust, the correct call that should have been logged by the first party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
7. If the QSO is a reverse exchange bust, the exchange logged by the second party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
8.  If the QSO is an ordinary exchange bust, the correct exchange that should have been logged by the first party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"

RBN Information

In CW contests from 2009 onwards, the RBN has been active, automatically spotting the frequency at which any station calling CQ was transmitting. To reflect possible use of RBN information, the augmented files include a fourteenth column. For the sake of uniformity, this column is present in all the augmented files, regardless of whether the RBN actually contributed useful information to a particular contest.

Each QSO has one of several characters in the fourteenth column of flags. These characters should be interpreted as follows:

'-'
  No useful RBN-derived information is available for this QSO.

'0'
  The worked station (i.e., the second call on the log line) appears to have begun to CQ on this frequency within (roughly) 60 seconds prior to the QSO.

'A' to 'Z'
  For the nth letter of the alphabet: the worked station appears to have been CQing on this frequency for (roughly) n minutes prior to the QSO.

'+'
  The worked station appears to have been CQing for more than 26 minutes on this frequency.

'<'
  Because the the RBN is distributed, and because each contest entrant station has its own clock, there is generally a skew between the reading of the clock of the station making the QSO and the timestamp from the RBN at which it believes a posting was made (indeed, it's unclear from the RBN's [lack of] documentation exactly how the timestamp on an individual RBN posting is to be interpreted). If the character '<' appears in the the RBN column, it indicates that the raw values of the clocks suggest that the QSO took place up to two minutes before the RBN reported the worked station commencing to CQ at this frequency. When this occurs, the most likely interpretation is that there is non-negligible skew between the two clocks, and the station was actually worked almost as soon as a CQ was posted by the RBN. But it might also mean that the entrant was simply lucky and found the CQing station just as it fired up on a new frequency.

Notes:

• 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 the ARRL has yet to understand the importance of making the scoring code public, the value of a flag for a specific QSO line in some circumstances might not match the value that the ARRL has assigned. (Also, the ARRL has additional, non-public, data available.)
• I made no attempt to deduce or infer 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.
• No attempt is made to detect the case in which both participants of a QSO bust the other station's call. This is a problematic situation because of the relatively high probability of a false positive unless both stations log the frequency as opposed to the band. (Also, on bands on which split-frequency QSOs are common, the absence of both transmit and receive frequency is a problem.) Because of the likelihood of false positives, it seems better, given the presumed rarity of double-bust QSOs, that no attempt be made to mark them.
• The entries for the exchanges in the case of exchange or reverse exchange busts are normalised to two-letter or four-digit values in the same manner as described above for the exchanges in the cleaned logs.

ARRL DX CW and SSB logs for 2023

The raw logs for the ARRL DX CW and SSB contests for 2023 have been added to this directory.

 

WAG Contest Logs 2017 to 2022

Logs for the Worked All Germany contest from 2017 to 2022 are now available in this repository of public WAG logs.

Fixing Problems After Debian Bullseye -> Bookworm

First three items are from upgrade of my shack computer.

Item #4 is from upgrade of my main desktop computer.

Item #5 is from my home server. 

Item #6 occurred on both the main desktop computer and the home server.

 

Following an error-free upgrade from debian bullseye to bookworm, I encountered the following problems:

1. Problem: The DejaVu Sans Mono font was no longer available.

Solution: I installed the package fonts-dejavu.

2. Problem: Even though the termName was set to xterm-256color in the ~/.Xresources file, the actual value of TERM in an xterm was "xterm".

Solution: Explicitly export TERM=256-color in the ~/.bashrc file. 

Comment: This looks like a bug; setting termName in the resources file has always worked in the past.

3. Problem: core dumps were no longer written to the current working file. (In fact, it wasn't clear where they were being written.)

Solution: Add the line:

kernel.core_pattern = core

to /etc/sysctl.conf.

Comment: I have been using versions of UNIX since the late 1980s. Every single version until debian bookworm would automatically dump core to the current working directory. This seems to be Yet One More example of the madness of systemd taking everything over. Why debian would change the default behaviour of something on which so many people rely seems ridiculous. But then, so did their decision to support systemd.

4. Problem: autotrash has been removed by the upgrade.

The autotrash website says that the script can be installed with:

 pip install --user autotrash

However, that produces:

 [ZB:bin] pip install --user autotrash
error: externally-managed-environment

× This environment is externally managed
╰─> To install Python packages system-wide, try apt install
   python3-xyz, where xyz is the package you are trying to
   install.
    
   If you wish to install a non-Debian-packaged Python package,
   create a virtual environment using python3 -m venv path/to/venv.
   Then use path/to/venv/bin/python and path/to/venv/bin/pip. Make
   sure you have python3-full installed.
    
   If you wish to install a non-Debian packaged Python application,
   it may be easiest to use pipx install xyz, which will manage a
   virtual environment for you. Make sure you have pipx installed.
    
   See /usr/share/doc/python3.11/README.venv for more information.

note: If you believe this is a mistake, please contact your Python installation or OS distribution provider. You can override this, at the risk of breaking your Python installation or OS, by passing --break-system-packages.
hint: See PEP 668 for the detailed specification.
[ZB:bin]

Solution:

Install the python3-full package. Then execute:

[ZB:~] python3 -m venv ~/.venvs/autotrash
[ZB:~] ~/.venvs/autotrash/bin/python -m pip install autotrash
Collecting autotrash
 Downloading autotrash-0.4.5-py3-none-any.whl (22 kB)
Installing collected packages: autotrash
Successfully installed autotrash-0.4.5
[ZB:~]

Now autotrash can be run as:

 ~/.venvs/autotrash/bin/autotrash

5. Problem: no networking.

This computer uses two ethernet ports: one to my ISP and hence to the Internet; one to my home LAN. On completing the upgrade (without error) and rebooting the machine, neither network was functioning.

The networking was originally configured as part of the process of installing stretch on this machine, probably about six years ago; networking has worked flawlessly since then, until this upgrade.

Solution:

The directory /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections directory contains two files, rather oddly called:

• 'Wired connection enp11s0(eth0).nmconnection'

• 'Wired connection enp12s0(eth1)'
  

The contents of these files are:

Wired connection enp11s0(eth0).nmconnection:

[connection]
id=Wired connection enp11s0(eth0)
uuid=8e308949-5232-47aa-b9b6-8aab6369ec4d
type=ethernet
permissions=

[ethernet]
mac-address-blacklist=

[ipv4]
address1=209.97.232.18/24,209.97.232.1
dns=127.0.0.1;209.97.224.2;209.97.224.3;
dns-search=
method=manual

[ipv6]
addr-gen-mode=stable-privacy
dns-search=
method=auto

[proxy]

Wired connection enp12s0(eth1):

[connection]
id=Wired connection enp12s0(eth1)
uuid=251dd901-f8b7-42ee-b568-b15ba565a81b
type=ethernet
permissions=

[ethernet]
mac-address=D8:50:E6:C2:76:03
mac-address-blacklist=

[ipv4]
address1=192.168.0.1/24
dns-search=
method=manual

[ipv6]
addr-gen-mode=stable-privacy
dns-search=
method=auto

The fix is to add a MAC address to the first file.

I note that it is odd that this is necessary: as enp12s0 is mapped directly to a particular port by the MAC address, Network Manager should know that enp11s0 should therefore be mapped to the other port. It has worked that way on this machine since stretch, but apparently this behaviour has changed in bookworm.

It took quite a while to figure this out; more details of the flailing around can be found in the threads that start at:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/09/msg00024.html and 

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/09/msg00061.html.

There is also an official response to the issue at:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051086,

which I note is remarkably unhelpful (if only because it suggests use of a utility that is not part of debian stable; but it also suggests that the problem is due to kernel timing, which is hard to believe given the discussion in the threads on lists.debian.org -- can a problem that depends on timing of the order of many seconds really be due to a change in kernel timing? -- also, the suggested fix seems less clean than the one I provide above; and, in any case, if a human can figure out which connection goes with which port, Network Manager should have been able to do the same. And Network Manager should in no circumstance have tried to assign two connections to each other, as is described in the first lists.debian.org post; the worst that should have happened is that the connection without a MAC address should have failed, and a useful error message provided).

6. Problem: Errors occur when attempting to connect to remote computers over ssh.

When trying to connect to remote systems over ssh, various error messages would be received. This is a typical such message:

Unable to negotiate with 77.109.148.18 port 22: no matching host key type found. Their offer: ssh-dss,ssh-ed25519

The messages all suggested that ssh was unable to find a common acceptable key type.

It seems that the default types of keys that are deemed acceptable must have changed in bookworm. The easiest fix is simply to restore the old keys types as being acceptable, by adding the following lines to ~/.ssh/config:

PubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes +ssh-rsa
PubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes +ssh-dss

HostKeyAlgorithms +ssh-rsa
HostkeyAlgorithms +ssh-dss

 

Reverse NILs in CQ WW: 2022; 2013 to 2022

The basic notion of reverse NILs (rNILs; or, I suppose, RNILs) is described here, along with a description of a simple script for calculating rNILs for CQ WW contests and the result of applying that code to the contests for 2005. See also the comments at the end of that post. I would be delighted if anyone who spots any errors in the script would inform me.

We can also look at the results for periods of ten years at a time; the only difference in the way that these decadal tables are calculated is that the minimum number of rQSOs is raised from 50 to 250 for tables pertaining to all QSOs and from 25 to 125 for those pertaining to intra-W QSOs. (That is, the value of the variable MIN_QSOs is changed from 50 to 250.)

Here are the results for 2022 and for the period from 2013 to 2022. As in prior years, I refrain from comment.

2022 SSB:

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs
PY2HT	1270	1079
LU9WE	772	559
VA3MLV	487	486
CN3A	13955	272
BY3CQ	1504	267
D4Z	13418	227
K1LZ	7785	174
RT5F	175	174
DJ4DN	289	172
VP2EIH	185	165

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs	% rNILs
VA3MLV	487	486	99.8
RT5F	175	174	99.4
VP2EIH	185	165	89.2
DJ5AM	140	122	87.1
VP9NR	111	95	85.6
PY2HT	1270	1079	85.0
W1ACB	56	42	75.0
LU9WE	772	559	72.4
OE3MDB	211	140	66.4
PD7LJ	198	128	64.6

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws
KV0Q	88	35	594	9
N7DD	52	34	664	15
NY6DX	62	29	1536	28
N2IC	130	24	2360	30
K8LX	29	23	1450	21
K1LZ	403	20	7382	154
K3LR	903	17	7735	86
W7RM	157	17	1943	20
NA6JD	42	15	88	26
KT7E	397	10	1394	10

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	Total rNILs against Ws	% rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws	% rNILs against non-Ws
K8LX	29	23	79.3	1450	21	1.4
N7DD	52	34	65.4	664	15	2.3
NY6DX	62	29	46.8	1536	28	1.8
KV0Q	88	35	39.8	594	9	1.5
NA6JD	42	15	35.7	88	26	29.5
K5NZ	32	7	21.9	434	6	1.4
N2IC	130	24	18.5	2360	30	1.3
AB3CX	28	5	17.9	2260	17	0.8
W7VJ	34	5	14.7	663	6	0.9
K8GL	41	5	12.2	1401	19	1.4

2022 CW:

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs
IK3UNA	1329	1048
CS2C	948	905
F6GOE	689	638
DF8AE	652	352
CN3A	14048	197
HF95PRK	249	178
A44A	8591	177
CR3DX	12718	165
V47T	7868	152
EA8RM	8055	151

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs	% rNILs
TG9ADM	62	61	98.4
CS2C	948	905	95.5
F6GOE	689	638	92.6
IK3UNA	1329	1048	78.9
HF95PRK	249	178	71.5
HB9IQB	78	49	62.8
R3QX	85	52	61.2
DF8AE	652	352	54.0
VU2IVV	163	74	45.4
JA1DBG	58	26	44.8

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws
K0RF	280	38	4134	38
W5ZN	70	30	1473	10
NN7CW	172	26	3213	30
K8LX	110	26	3615	30
K1ZM	28	24	215	5
KV2K	43	21	1003	17
K1RX	235	15	5871	50
N7DD	33	14	877	11
K5TR	200	12	3244	44
K3LR	455	11	8038	76

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	Total rNILs against Ws	% rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws	% rNILs against non-Ws
K1ZM	28	24	85.7	215	5	2.3
KV2K	43	21	48.8	1003	17	1.7
W5ZN	70	30	42.9	1473	10	0.7
N7DD	33	14	42.4	877	11	1.3
K8LX	110	26	23.6	3615	30	0.8
W7RM	52	9	17.3	2641	27	1.0
W4RM	26	4	15.4	1853	27	1.5
NN7CW	172	26	15.1	3213	30	0.9
K0RF	280	38	13.6	4134	38	0.9
W2CG	46	6	13.0	2962	27	0.9

As I write this, the results for the 2022 contests are yet to be announced. I fully expect that, as in years past, that none of the people in the final table of each group whose rNIL rate against Ws exceeds 50% will be disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct -- or even be investigated in order to determine the reason for what appears on its face to be an excessive rNIL rate against Ws. Year after year, the situation remains the same.

(I do note that rNILs do occur naturally when one of the two operators is a bit sloppy, and a rate that is higher against Ws than against non-Ws could [possibly] be explained as a natural occurrence: for example, the running W operator hears two callers, one W and one DX, and the running station would normally go back to and work the DX station if he can, while the W caller might sloppily believe that he was being worked. What is concerning, though, and should reasonably be a cause for (at a minimum) further investigation, is when the rNIL rate against Ws greatly exceeds the rate against non-Ws, or when the same calls appear in the tables year after year.)

2013 to 2022 SSB:

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs
EA2DMH	5864	1650
CN3A	81269	1559
LZ9W	93036	1379
PJ2T	72613	1193
JE5JHZ	1603	1185
A73A	57153	1118
PY2HT	3122	1111
YL2014W	1106	1099
MI0M	3870	1085
OT5A	62321	1058

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs	% rNILs
YV4GMG	328	327	99.7
YL2014W	1106	1099	99.4
CU4AT	274	270	98.5
ZZ5Z	297	292	98.3
KP4ROS	667	653	97.9
EA8DDS	503	387	76.9
JE5JHZ	1603	1185	73.9
LU9WE	772	559	72.4
CO2SG	343	232	67.6
OK1KZ	933	599	64.2

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws
N7DD	577	378	8460	161
KV0Q	825	374	7677	116
K3LR	5238	107	62815	758
NY6DX	206	98	6239	101
N2IC	761	95	12809	115
N9RV	728	91	11705	120
K5TR	2982	73	21465	357
K3EST	1494	69	13071	231
W3LPL	2420	66	46188	620
KC1XX	1795	45	42867	622

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	Total rNILs against Ws	% rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws	% rNILs against non-Ws
N7DD	577	378	65.5	8460	161	1.9
NY6DX	206	98	47.6	6239	101	1.6
KV0Q	825	374	45.3	7677	116	1.5
AB4B	173	23	13.3	7137	98	1.4
N9RV	728	91	12.5	11705	120	1.0
N2IC	761	95	12.5	12809	115	0.9
N3AD	165	20	12.1	9410	148	1.6
N7TU	131	14	10.7	1524	23	1.5
W8PR	248	26	10.5	11862	168	1.4
K3UL	195	19	9.7	10234	182	1.8

CW 2013 to 2022:

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs
PJ2T	93139	1381
LZ9W	106708	1376
P33W	81257	1140
IK3UNA	12053	1135
9A1A	88591	1052
PJ4A	63571	1040
CS2C	13862	1028
ZF1A	51855	1027
V47T	56107	1016
PI4DX	13591	1009

Call	Total rQSOs	Total rNILs	% rNILs
RA9KY	459	458	99.8
RZ9CJ	462	460	99.6
OK1KZ	1226	993	81.0
WB0CFF	430	313	72.8
CO2IZ	258	178	69.0
F6GOE	1123	640	57.0
AB3UM	276	153	55.4
XF1IM	702	385	54.8
YS1MS	433	232	53.6
PP5BLU	305	148	48.5

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws
N7DD	334	189	7815	153
K0RF	2231	152	33718	402
NR5M	1237	140	15932	152
KV2K	396	129	20213	333
N9RV	679	80	16153	171
NA3M	191	78	11906	98
WJ9B	795	71	12185	109
W3LPL	2674	69	69176	601
K3LR	3245	69	68369	596
NN7CW	901	67	15625	175

Call	Total rQSOs with Ws	Total rNILs against Ws	% rNILs against Ws	Total rQSOs with non-Ws	rNILs against non-Ws	% rNILs against non-Ws
N7DD	334	189	56.6	7815	153	2.0
W1IE	140	62	44.3	3313	136	4.1
NA3M	191	78	40.8	11906	98	0.8
KV2K	396	129	32.6	20213	333	1.6
K8LX	197	54	27.4	7977	84	1.1
NE3F	228	59	25.9	14863	271	1.8
KZ5D	247	58	23.5	10859	138	1.3
W5ZN	212	48	22.6	4476	48	1.1
KV0Q	200	43	21.5	1930	63	3.3
W0QQG	152	28	18.4	1443	216	15.0

Busting Calls: CQ WW 2022

 Prior posts in this series:

• Initial analysis
• Further analysis
• CQ WW SSB 2005 to 2016 
• CQ WW CW 2005 to 2016
• Non-Run QSOs, CQ WW 2005 to 2016
• Run QSOs, CQ WW 2005 to 2016
• 2017, 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2021
  

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 2022 CQ WW SSB.

2022 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	OK1WCF	0.0005	1,719	0
2	M3AWD	0.0006	1,506	0
3	PY2KJ	0.0008	1,213	0
4	N2BJ	0.0010	964	0
5	PY5FO	0.0010	926	0
6	G4P	0.0010	909	0
7	I2WIJ	0.0011	882	0
8	W1ARY	0.0012	772	0
9	W6DVS	0.0013	762	0
10	IK1PMR	0.0013	741	0

And for 2022 CQ WW CW:

2022 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	DL4FN	0.0004	2,040	0
2	SN5J	0.0005	1,722	0
3	DL6NDW	0.0006	1,572	0
4	W3KB	0.0007	1,342	0
5	EU8U	0.0007	1,266	0
6	N3NR	0.0009	1,087	0
7	K1ZZ	0.0009	3,418	2
8	SP9XCN	0.0009	2,155	1
9	K3PH	0.0009	2,142	1
10	M2J	0.0010	992	0

It is interesting to plot the aggregated probability function for $p_{bust}$ weighted by the verified number of 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).

2022 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	OK1WCF	0.0006	1,436	0
2	M3AWD	0.0008	1,234	0
3	9A2EU	0.0010	955	0
4	N5RZ	0.0010	954	0
5	N3FJP	0.0010	918	0
6	G4P	0.0011	876	0
7	N2YO	0.0012	793	0
8	I2WIJ	0.0012	791	0
9	W1ARY	0.0013	765	0
10	W6DVS	0.0013	762	0

2022 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	DL4FN	0.0006	1,634	0
2	SN5J	0.0006	1,598	0
3	DK1KC	0.0007	1,428	0
4	DJ5MO	0.0008	1,226	0
5	DL6NDW	0.0008	1,194	0
6	W3KB	0.0008	1,164	0
7	IO1T	0.0008	1,125	0
8	K3PH	0.0009	1,082	0
9	N2RC	0.0009	1,076	0
10	EA2ESB	0.0009	1,053	0

And similarly for running stations.

2022 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	PY2KJ	0.0009	1,074	0
2	OH0V	0.0011	884	0
3	VC3R	0.0013	1,499	1
4	5Q2J	0.0014	674	0
5	PY5FO	0.0014	673	0
6	W1GD	0.0017	571	0
7	Z68XX	0.0018	546	0
8	VE3VN	0.0019	1,050	1
9	NT6X	0.0019	500	0
10	K1BX	0.0020	488	0

2022 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	N2GC	0.0011	886	0
2	EU8U	0.0011	880	0
3	K3WJV	0.0012	802	0
4	K1ZZ	0.0012	2,467	2
5	DL1SAN	0.0012	774	0
6	K1DG	0.0015	2,651	3
7	HG0Y	0.0015	1,979	2
8	K5ZD	0.0017	3,581	5
9	SP9XCN	0.0018	1,118	1
10	DM2M	0.0019	519	0

We can also look at the changes over the period from 2005 to 2022.

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:

2013--2022 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	IK1PMR	0.0005	1,669	0
2	IK4OMU	0.0006	1,501	0
3	RU3SD	0.0007	1,318	0
4	ES2MC	0.0007	2,780	1
5	K4RUM	0.0007	1,267	0
6	K0PC	0.0008	1,217	0
7	NW0M	0.0008	3,649	2
8	LY3CY	0.0008	4,832	3
9	W4EE	0.0008	1,130	0
10	IZ4JMA	0.0008	1,129	0

2013--2022 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	NW0M	0.0002	3,926	0
2	HL1VAU	0.0002	3,893	0
3	WB4TDH	0.0004	5,406	1
4	K6WSC	0.0004	4,955	1
5	SE6N	0.0004	4,735	1
6	AD1C	0.0004	4,731	1
7	DL4FN	0.0004	9,137	3
8	KM3T	0.0005	1,966	0
9	DP4X	0.0005	4,132	1
10	JA1QOW	0.0005	3,915	1

A good argument can be made that a better measure of copying ability is to consider only run QSOs:

2013--2022 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	F4FTA	0.0009	1,108	0
2	N1EU	0.0009	1,013	0
3	R7MM	0.0011	869	0
4	ES2MC	0.0012	1,682	1
5	CF7RR	0.0013	1,557	1
6	DL8RDL	0.0013	734	0
7	EE1A	0.0014	673	0
8	K0AP	0.0014	665	0
9	VA7RR	0.0015	5,494	7
10	DL7URH	0.0016	1,262	1

2013--2022 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position	Call	weighted mean	$Q_v$	$B$
1	LY3CY	0.0005	1,717	0
2	RW5CW	0.0006	1,664	0
3	W3OA	0.0006	1,573	0
4	WQ5L	0.0006	1,520	0
5	WB4TDH	0.0007	3,016	1
6	SE6N	0.0007	1,369	0
7	YU1RA	0.0007	2,787	1
8	VX7SZ	0.0007	1,294	0
9	KM3T	0.0008	1,193	0
10	OM7AT	0.0009	1,102	0

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:

2022 SSB -- Most Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	CN3A	13,659	233	1.7
2	FM5KC	7,324	200	2.7
3	OT5A	7,125	198	2.8
4	K1LZ	7,577	174	2.3
5	PJ2T	10,739	163	1.5
6	CQ8M	4,870	150	3.1
7	CR6K	9,443	149	1.6
8	ZF1A	9,973	143	1.4
9	F6KOP	6,423	140	2.2
10	EA8RM	11,501	139	1.2

2022 CW -- Most Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	F6KOP	7,534	219	2.9
2	EA8RM	7,981	194	2.4
3	CN3A	13,863	189	1.4
4	TK0C	12,254	188	1.5
5	JA3YBK	5,019	145	2.9
6	A71BX	3,542	144	4.1
7	OT7T	9,500	143	1.5
8	IB1D	2,719	141	5.2
9	LZ9W	11,215	138	1.2
10	PJ2T	11,682	134	1.1

2022 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	IS0AGY	108	20	18.5
2	YD1CMZ	132	20	15.2
3	VU2OO	165	24	14.5
4	WB7EUJ	161	23	14.3
5	YB1KEL	162	23	14.2
6	VR2UNG	120	17	14.2
7	YB2SPP	102	14	13.7
8	YF1ANL	102	14	13.7
9	W5AAG	126	16	12.7
10	UA3PI	183	21	11.5

2022 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	AI2U	141	34	24.1
2	OK1MKD	110	25	22.7
3	CM3OR	193	41	21.2
4	DL7CO	181	37	20.4
5	JJ5NFT	191	39	20.4
6	K9HXO	215	42	19.5
7	CE6VMO	295	53	18.0
8	JK1CNL	131	22	16.8
9	DL4DRG	146	24	16.4
10	VU2VTI	117	19	16.2

2022 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	IS0AGY	108	20	18.5
2	YD1CMZ	132	20	15.2
3	VU2OO	165	24	14.5
4	WB7EUJ	161	23	14.3
5	YB1KEL	162	23	14.2
6	VR2UNG	120	17	14.2
7	YB2SPP	102	14	13.7
8	YF1ANL	102	14	13.7
9	W5AAG	126	16	12.7
10	UA3PI	183	21	11.5

2022 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	AI2U	141	34	24.1
2	OK1MKD	110	25	22.7
3	CM3OR	193	41	21.2
4	DL7CO	181	37	20.4
5	JJ5NFT	191	39	20.4
6	K9HXO	215	42	19.5
7	CE6VMO	295	53	18.0
8	JK1CNL	131	22	16.8
9	DL4DRG	146	24	16.4
10	VU2VTI	117	19	16.2

2022 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	% Reverse Busts
1	NP4WW	147	100.0
2	PT4Z	1,011	20.3
3	TA7YLY	209	18.2
4	9M4BCN	170	17.1
5	BY4DX	918	14.5
6	OZ0JD	459	13.1
7	BD3OD	114	12.3
8	CT2KNA	1,122	10.8
9	YC0BOY	115	10.4
10	BG6HOK	117	10.3

2022 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	% Reverse Busts
1	F5PP	216	19.4
2	N3HEE	340	13.5
3	HB75SG	119	13.4
4	EB7A	6,198	13.1
5	SP2HHX	505	12.7
6	IU2OZV	356	11.8
7	W0GJ	452	11.7
8	K3HW	505	11.3
9	SV0SYH	170	11.2
10	BG3HMQ	117	10.3

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as is the case, for example, for NP4WW in the 2022 SSB table above). 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.

2013--2022 SSB -- Most Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	LZ9W	91,388	1,633	1.8
2	CN3A	79,598	1,437	1.8
3	OT5A	61,077	1,275	2.1
4	PJ2T	71,347	1,261	1.8
5	A73A	55,906	1,080	1.9
6	V26B	54,777	929	1.7
7	YT5A	61,330	895	1.5
8	II2S	48,429	870	1.8
9	ED1R	56,728	837	1.5
10	CR6K	50,573	813	1.6

2013--2022 CW -- Most Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	LZ9W	104,970	1,176	1.1
2	PJ2T	91,720	1,155	1.3
3	TK0C	73,216	1,092	1.5
4	PI4CC	48,781	970	2.0
5	ZW8T	12,253	881	7.2
6	JA3YBK	48,387	862	1.8
7	RW0A	49,639	830	1.7
8	YT5A	80,598	772	1.0
9	HG7T	68,110	771	1.1
10	VY2TT	46,404	746	1.6

2013--2022 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	K2JMY	1,632	262	16.1
2	EA7JQT	572	71	12.4
3	JR1MQT	775	89	11.5
4	OH1TS	660	75	11.4
5	EA1HTF	1,762	177	10.0
6	PU2TRX	655	65	9.9
7	EA4GWL	931	91	9.8
8	IS0ILP	553	53	9.6
9	LU4DJB	672	64	9.5
10	YB9KA	706	67	9.5

2013--2022 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	Busts	% Busts
1	W2UDT	668	148	22.2
2	BD3MV	896	189	21.1
3	4Z5FW	527	108	20.5
4	DJ5UZ	723	136	18.8
5	DL7CO	991	164	16.5
6	WP3Y	570	93	16.3
7	CE6VMO	695	111	16.0
8	AE3D	1,016	161	15.8
9	LZ1BY	789	124	15.7
10	IK0YUO	670	104	15.5

2013--2022 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Reverse Busts	% Reverse Busts
1	DF0HQ	83,594	2,489	3.0
2	JA3YBK	34,097	1,177	3.5
3	CN3A	79,598	1,084	1.4
4	TM3R	24,257	1,049	4.3
5	K3LR	67,007	1,019	1.5
6	CA3CLF	982	915	93.2
7	IK2YCW	25,411	830	3.3
8	GM2T	34,451	781	2.3
9	OT5A	61,077	775	1.3
10	YT5A	61,330	765	1.2

2013--2022 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position	Call	QSOs	Reverse Busts	% Reverse Busts
1	JS3CTQ	22,376	2,689	12.0
2	DF0HQ	80,316	2,602	3.2
3	ES9C	72,304	2,252	3.1
4	HG7T	68,110	1,572	2.3
5	R2VM	1,426	1,426	100.0
6	W2FU	53,926	1,421	2.6
7	RM9A	63,391	1,399	2.2
8	K3LR	70,698	1,354	1.9
9	YT5A	80,598	1,325	1.6
10	DR4A	52,681	1,273	2.4

2013--2022 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	% Reverse Busts
1	CA3CLF	982	93.2
2	PT4Z	1,011	20.3
3	ZP6DYA	963	12.1
4	OG60F	4,258	11.4
5	BY4DX	1,269	11.3
6	BH7PCT	846	10.9
7	LU9DDJ	862	10.4
8	BV55D	919	10.2
9	JG3SVP	1,270	10.1
10	DX3EVM	527	10.1

2013--2022 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position	Call	QSOs	% Reverse Busts
1	R2VM	1,426	100.0
2	YT65A	1,149	37.2
3	G3RWF	2,682	35.5
4	5K0A	1,853	32.1
5	PE75W	1,408	29.3
6	OG55W	3,265	28.6
7	TA1C/2	1,513	18.1
8	DP65HSC	516	16.9
9	5J1E	1,523	15.6
10	SB0A	1,102	15.5

REF Contest Logs 2010 to 2023

 Logs for the REF contest from 2010 to 2023 are now available in this repository of public REF logs.

 

Continent-Based Analyses from 2022 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 public CQ WW logs (see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2022.

Continent Pairs

We start by looking at the number of QSOs for pairs of continents from the contests for 2022.

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 this way, the total  number of half-QSOs in bins of width 500 km is accumulated. Once all the QSOs for a particular mode 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 2022

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 2022. 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. Perhaps more than any other plot, this makes unmistakable the dominance of EU in the CQ WW contests.

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 2022, a quarter of all QSOs were within the same continent; nearly a fifth of all QSOs were between two European stations. This despite much-improved conditions for DX contacts and the near-elimination of the two largest countries in Europe because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Flogging a dead horse, as I do every year, and even in the current year -- a year in which activity from the two largest countries in Europe was greatly diminished -- on 160m more than 60% of QSOs in this "world wide DX" contest were between two European entrants, even in the more DX-friendly mode. On SSB, about three quarters of all QSOs were between two European entrants.