An interesting graph. However, the scatter in the data creates an
uncertainty that makes a constant interest equally likely. Based on a
constant interest, the average is 79 ± 14, with ICCF-1 and ICCF-3 being
outliers at both extremes.
Ed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
John Coviello wrote:
I had no idea that the situation was that dire for the ICCFs. I hope
there were some late participants planning on coming to this year's
ICCF in Japan. What was the high water mark for the ICCF conferences?
Judging by the group photo I would say it was ICCF-3, in Japan. That
was also the peak in the number of papers submitted to the
proceedings. I have a handy index EndNote index of papers developed by
Britz and Storms. It may not have every single paper, but here are
totals for each ICCF conference:
1, 38
2, 62
3, 102
4, 93
5, 77
6, 70
7, 93
8, 69
9, 94
10, 93
11, 68
For no particularly good reason, I fitted a couple curves to these and
plotted them. In keeping with the no-attached-images semirule I stuck
it here:
http://physicsinsights.org/images/iccf-papers-versus-event.png
Green line is a straight linear fit to the full dataset, blue line is a
quadratic fit (showing a peak at around ICCF 7, FWIW), and the (slightly
thicker) magenta line is a linear fit with the first three ICCF's
removed from the dataset.
So, ignoring ICCF 1, 2, 3, the result is a gradual falling trend.
For whatever that's worth...
