CQ WW Zone Pair QSOs: 2007

This post shows the number of QSOs for pairs of zones from the CQ WW contests for 2007. The plots are created from the augmented file (cq-ww-2005--2017-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) derived from the public logs.

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.)

CQ WW Zone Pair QSOs: 2006

This post shows the number of QSOs for pairs of zones from the CQ WW contests for 2006. The plots are created from the augmented file (cq-ww-2005--2017-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) derived from the public logs.

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. (A zone pair with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.)

CQ WW Zone Pair QSOs: 2005

I considered calling this post "The CQ Not-So-World-Wide Contest'.

Anyone who has participated in CQ WW quickly realises the gross variation in activity around the world. I decided to plot the number of QSOs made per zone pair, never having seen such a plot (although doubtless they exist somewhere), and I discovered that such graphs represent said variation in a way that I found quite shocking.

These are the data for 2005; rather than create one unwieldy post, I decided to provide the graphs in a series of posts, one for each year.

The plots are created from the augmented file (cq-ww-2005--2017-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) derived from the public logs.

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 produced for each band, as well as 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. (A zone pair with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.)

I refrain from passing comment on the figures here -- I think that their story is quite obvious.

Reverse Beacon Network Actvity: 2009-2017

I here show various plots of the G(15, 100) grid-based scatter metric, G(15, 100), for the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN), using data from the inception of the RBN up to the end of 2017.

As in the past I note that a reasonable a priori case can be made on the basis of propagation characteristics that somewhat different metrics in the G(Δ, n) series might be better representations of RBN coverage on some of the bands. However, rather than make this into a full-scale research project, I shall simply continue to use the G(15, 100) metric on the basis that it seems "good enough" on all bands.

RBN Posting Stations as a Function of Time

We begin by looking simply at how the number of per-band posters to the RBN has varied since the RBN's inception. (NB Throughout this post, we ignore posters for which the location is not recorded by the RBN; plots for which the abscissa is time show one datum per month.)

First, a plot of the total number of posters as a function of time:

This can be more compactly represented, along with similar per-band data for 160m through 10m (excluding 60m):

G(15, 100) as a Function of Time

Turning now to the geographical distribution of the posting stations, we can display the mensal values of G(15, 100) in a similar manner:

As in prior years, this makes it depressingly obvious how much room remains for improvement in RBN coverage, and how slowly the situation is changing.

G(15, 100) as a Function of the Number of Posters

Finally, we can combine the mensal values of G(15, 100) and the number of posters. Firstly, including all bands:

 
The summary plot for these data is slightly different, as the ordinate is multi-valued for some values of the abscissa. So, in this summary plot, we take the mean value of G(15, 100) in bins of width equivalent to ten posters, and plot rectangles in the equivalent colours:

Addendum: Band-by-Band Comparison of DX QSO Rates for CQ WW, 2005 to 2017

This post shows band-by-band plots of inter-zone QSOs made during CQ WW between 2005 and 2017.

I thought that it might be somewhat interesting to include a plot that shows the same data, integrating over all bands:

Revised Cleaned and Augmented Logs for 2017 CQ WW CW and SSB Contests

Revisions to the cleaned and augmented versions of the logs for the CQ WW CW and SSB contests are now available for the period 2005 to 2017.

Links to the cleaned and augmented logs may be followed here.

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. All zones are now rendered with two digits, so as to further simplify processing by other parties.

The augmented logs contain the same information as the cleaned logs, with the addition of some useful 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 [ the contest organisers have stated that checklogs are not made public, but in fact at least some of them from the early years have been, hence the need for the "C" 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 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 
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 zone bust, the zone logged by the second party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
8.  If the QSO is an ordinary zone bust, the correct zone that should have been logged by the first party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"

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 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 generally not made public.)
• 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.
• 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 zones in the case of zone or reverse zone busts are normalised to two-digit values.

Band-by-Band Comparison of DX QSO Rates for CQ WW, 2005 to 2017

The availability of public logs for CQ WW CW and SSB contests spanning thirteen years (cq-ww-2005--2017-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) allows us to look at the variation in the rate at which DX QSOs are made throughout each contest over a relatively long period. (I here define DX QSOs as those between different zones; other definitions are obviously possible.)

This exercise is essentially identical to the one performed last year for the twelve years of data then available.

In the plots, the number of QSOs is accumulated every ten minutes, so there are six points per hour.

I present the results without comment.

In regard to the 10m results, I should point out, as I did last year, that the CW contest occurs roughly a month after the SSB one, and is therefore considerably closer to the winter solstice, with the concomitant decrease in the number of hours of common daylight between Europe and North America (particularly western NA). I have long wondered what would happen if CQ WW (and CQ WPX and ARRL DX) would switch CW and SSB weekends every year.