[Cwo] some initial reflections 3 vs 4 hours
Peter Chamalian
w1rm at arrl.net
Thu Aug 25 04:21:58 PDT 2011
The big difference between 3 and 4 hours is the propagation changes. For me
in the 12z event, I worked most of my non-US contacts in the last hour when
15 got a little better.
Now someone will always be on the short end of the propagation stick for the
last hour but others will be on the long end. Better propagation makes it
more fun.
Pete, W1RM
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Talens [mailto:jtalens at verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:58 AM
To: k6rb at baymoon.com
Cc: cwo at kkn.net
Subject: Re: [Cwo] some initial reflections
3 versus 4 hours is a gray area for decision. I am not convinced next year
or even the year after will see the kind of increase in participation that
warrants a full 4 hours per session, but it would be no mistake to stick
with 4 hours either. It just makes it all unnecessarily tedious. I do
agree that changing the session duration for 2012 and then thinking about
lengthening it the following year or two years later telegraphs (in the
literary sense) a certain organizational capriciousness that itself is
undesirable. So I suppose I agree with Rob that we should keep the first
two sessions to 4 hours. After all, how much worse is that than Sweepstakes
for the last 6 hours! The real issue is what to do about the third session,
which might need some adjustment.
-----Original Message-----
From: k6rb at baymoon.com [mailto:k6rb at baymoon.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Jim Talens
Cc: cwo at kkn.net
Subject: Re: [Cwo] some initial reflections
I'm inclined to suggest we:
- change the date to third weekend in July (to avoid conflicts)
- leave everything else the same
Here's my thinking:
- there's going to be winners for the 2011 CWO, and trophies, etc. which
will be publicized
- word of mouth about how much fun it was will get around
- we will not have conflict with Russia and Japan, next time
- we will have more of a chance to promote it among our members
- the propagation may be better
If the turnout is similar to 2011, we can adjust the sessions back to 3
hours. I don't want to overreact to 2011. In 2012, we can make the team
competition more fierce by offering more than bragging rights.
The mini-CWTs took a while to get traction, so we have to be a little bit
patient with CWO.
Rob K6RB
> Rob (and Alan, with Don and others who gave birth to CWO), don't get
> swelled
> heads when I offer that you guys really have orchestrated a major new
> event
> that has met with remarkable success the first time out. I do have a few
> minor observations, though.
>
>
>
> I sent an earlier message on some log reporting anomalies that hopefully
> Don
> can deal with. They are minor. Here are my other comments:
>
>
>
> 1. The overall participation, especially for sessions 1 and 2, was
> remarkable considering each session was 4 hours. Like Sweepstakes, there
> were a lot of big guns CQing for the last half hour with few answers.
>
> 2. Given we have 850 or so active members it strikes me as somewhat
> surprising there weren't far more participants. In the 3 sessions, the
> last
> of which I bagged after 90 minutes because I was sleepy and not getting
> enough QSO action to warrant staying up all night, I worked, respectively
> 158, 164 and 77 multipliers. Take out non-members and assume most
> callsigns were repeats as among the sessions, we are talking at most 225
> or
> so members participating (or, rather, that I worked). By any measure that
> is a minority of the club and to me surprisingly low. But it was a lot
> better than the CWT events. I think FOC does better for its equivalent,
> the
> Marathon, but it has a long history of the Marathon and even that
> participating is decreasing annually, I believe. They have virtually no
> success with activity days, and their QSO parties (BWQP) are no marginally
> successful.
>
> 3. My guess is that 3 hours is sufficient for a session. But if
> next
> year sees an increase in participation it will appropriate to return to 4
> hours for 2013.
>
> 4. Prevailing radio conditions make a particularly big difference in
> international contacts given most EU guys are using modest stations.
> Session 1 was my "sweet spot" but I would have thought session 2 to be the
> "main event." It was not, perhaps because there was not great skip to
> Europe, even on 40 or 20. So I am not sure sessions 1 or 2 should be
> changed other than shifting each by one hour, i.e., shorter at the
> beginning or end. I would think 2100-2400 would be better than 2000-2300
> if
> it's 3 hours. For session 1, 1200-1500 seems just fine. Session 3 I am
> not
> sure I fully understand given it is very early for Europeans and we have
> so
> few Asian members. Is there wisdom in trying to create skip equality
> given
> low participation by minority membership in Asia? We need to think about
> session 3 a bit, I think.
>
> 5. I did not see a soapbox block in the log reporting. The big
> block
> was for log information but perhaps could have been used for soapbox
> comments. I don't know and it didn't say anything about soapbox comments,
> unless I just missed it. I think it's advisable to have soapbox comments
> posted in a list on the website or in Solid Copy once the log totals are
> available. People like to see what they said, in print!
>
> 6. RDA and Keyman were certainly intrusions (and we to them), and
> NAQP
> may have drawn some members away from CWO. I also saw some CWops members
> active in an RTTY contest during the weekend. Wasn't the same scheduling
> information available when the August dates were selected? WA7BNM's site
> shows July 22 as a good choice, however! I would think giving notice of
> it
> when results for 2011 CWO are announced makes good sense.
>
> 7. I think next time we need to encourage guys to listen on
> 80/160/10
> on the half hour, where appropriate.
>
>
>
> Thanks for reading all this!
>
>
>
> Jim, N3JT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cwo-bounces at kkn.net [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Rob
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: cwo at kkn.net
> Subject: [Cwo] some initial reflections
>
>
>
> All told, I think CW OPEN was a success. Given all the factors beyond our
> control (RDA, JA "keyman," etc.), the first two sessions were well
> attended.
> Here are some things that need attention:
>
>
>
> - the date is not good (NAQP SSB and RDA)
>
> - the last session (unless there are a lot of JAs and EUs is a problem)
>
>
>
> First, I looked at the perpetual calendar on Bruce's website and the
> weekend
> of July 23 (or thereabouts) has virtual no conflicts of any kind. So, I
> would propose that next year we move it to that weekend, and publicize the
> change right away.
>
>
>
> Second, maybe if RDA and keyman were not an issue, we would have gotten
> more
> EU and JA players (I hope so). So, changing the schedule would solve that
> problem, too.
>
>
>
> Lastly, the 2000-2400Z session (session 2) should have been the
> "sweetspot"
> session in North America. If 20, 15 and 10 are all operative, even with
> only
> 200 players, a solid 10 meter opening would have minimized the dip when 15
> went "soft" but it was still too early for 40 to go "long." That is
> something, however, that we cannot control.
>
>
>
> I am open to suggestion about changing the starting times on any session;
> and open to suggestion about shortening the sessions from, say, 4 to 3
> hours. However, if we had sufficient participation, the 4-hour sessions
> seem
> like they should produce results.
>
>
>
> Anyway, introducing a new contest that has some significantly new
> structures, scoring, and the like is not easy and I think we all did a
> creditable job. I will write something up for Solid Copy for the next
> issue.
>
>
>
> Rob K6RB
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
_______________________________________________
Cwo mailing list
Cwo at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
More information about the Cwo
mailing list