Some time ago I purchased a used set of the Bencher paddles at
a swap. They appear to be in pretty good condition and seem to
work o.k. but I would like to have them refurbished and hopefully
brought back to new condition. I have talked to Bencher and they
will do the refurb but seemed non-commital on how long it would take.
Is there someone out there in the contest community that does this
type of work or would I be better off buying a new set?
A similar question.....what type/brand of key do most folks use?
Thanks,
Wayne KC5DVT ehayes@vnet.ibm.com
>From dave@egh.com (David Clemons) Thu Jul 18 20:11:01 1996
From: dave@egh.com (David Clemons) (David Clemons)
Subject: removal of IK0HBN
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607181532.A28053-0100000@newman.egh.com>
Hi,
My message was sent before getting Trey's on the same subject. I
am quite glad to hear that normal log analysis and removal of uniques
undergoes a much greater degree of care than was allowed under the time
constraints of WRTC. However, I think that there is still a great danger
in removing any uniques for the sake of uniqueness. In cases like
K1DC/K1VUT, are we to assume that the log checking experts will be able
to correctly ascertain which unique contacts are local friends who wanted
to give someone a qso simply because they are friends? As well
intentioned and knowledgeable as they are, I think that level of knowledge
is still a bit much to expect of them.
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>From rrossi@btv.ibm.com (Ronald D Rossi) Thu Jul 18 20:37:51 1996
From: rrossi@btv.ibm.com (Ronald D Rossi) (Ronald D Rossi)
Subject: removal of IK0HBN
Message-ID: <9607181937.AA39557@btv.ibm.com>
>>>David Clemons said:
>
> This is exactly the concern I voiced when people began to
> consider the possibility of using analysis of unique calls to help with
> score checking. In my opinion there is absolutely no justification to
> remove a call simply on the grounds that it is a unique.
>
> Don't think for a moment that IK0HBN was the only unique call in this
> contest. While CQ'ing on 20 meters, K1DC (my friend and contester of
> many years ago, Don Benecchi) called me and gave me a qso. I assumed he
> was running through the band working DX, and gave me a call because we
> are friends. I saw him at our local club meeting three nights later, and
^^^^^^^
> was surprised to find out that I was the only one he worked in the whole
This is likely the very reason a unique like this was dropped from any
competitor (not regular Joe Ham) logs.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am in NO WAY saying that IK0HBN made this contact for this reason.
NOR am I saying that the team did anything out of the ordinary.
I repeat this is not to be construed as a slam against the operators
involved IN ANY WAY.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gee, was I clear enough...I hope?
--
73 de N1PBT...ron (rrossi@btv.ibm.com) <><
>From TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) Thu Jul 18 22:23:03 1996
From: TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: removal of IK0HBN
Message-ID: <837724983.853577.TREY@tgv.com>
> However, I think that there is still a great danger
> in removing any uniques for the sake of uniqueness.
After reading this message the first time, I felt it suggested that
the removal QSOs for the sake of uniqueness was commonplace. I feel
compelled to write a response before people start jumping to
conclusions, so as to let them know that this sort of thing is
simply not happening in *real* contests. Of course, just now after
reading it a second time, I realized I had jumped to a conclusion of
my own to think you were suggesting this. :-) Oh well, too late to
stop writing now!
The disclaimer (again): I am not a spokesperson for WRTC. The reason
I am writing is beacuse the official WRTC spokepeople are remaining
silient because WRTC made them all very, very tired, and in some cases
under-the-weather, and most cases very cranky, and they all need a
nap. They are all sleeping now. Since I didn't do any *real* work to
make this event a success, I have just enough energy to drag myself
into the office and post messages to CQ-Contest all day.
Another disclaimer: this message wanders into a long digression that
has nothing to do with log checking. Don't say I didn't warn you.
An underlying thread to my description of the WRTC log checking
process (if not explicitly stated) was that if you were one of the top
five finishers in WRTC, your log was reviewed by a committee of log
checking *experts*. If you were not in the top five, well, uh, maybe
your log was checking by someone was isn't an expert.
My personal opinion is that removing IK0HBN was an error in judgement
on the part of that particular judge, who was probably not a log
checking *expert*. Since this wasn't one of the top logs, it wasn't
subjected to scruitiny by the eyes of someone who was. The guys doing
the log checking simply didn't have a lot of time to work with. An
interesting suggestion for next time might be for the committee to
spend 60 seconds reivewing each log from "the pack" to prevent any
glaring errors, but I can see how this is a lower priority than making
sure the top guys get better quality checking.
As a side-note: I heard one competitor submitted a floppy disk that
needed an hour of massaging by one of the log checking *experts* to be
imported into the database. Maybe that was the hour that would have
been otherwise spent reviewing the other 49 logs at 60 seconds per
log. I don't mean this as a recrimination of the competitor -- it's
just one of those things that was overlooked while the WRTC was being
organized. What was WRTC going to do? DQ the guy after he had flown
millions of miles (I mean, thousands of miles) to San Francisco? Have
him edit the log himself (and create an appearance of him having an
unfair advantage by getting to massage his log for an hour after
everyone else had turned theirs in)?
The actual WRTC committee was faced with judgement calls like this
minute after minute after minute during the entire week. The Motel 6
screwed up the reservations. This or that caterer dropped the ball.
The Motel 6 is run by morons. There's a problem with the
transportation vendor. Uh oh, the Motel 6 kicked everyone out of
their rooms (you might say "they turned the light off on us" and shut
the curtains and made the place very dark). Someone's radio broke in
transit and we need find a replacement. The restaurant at the Motel 6
can only handle six patrons concurrently.
On-site (or quasi-on-site) hf radio competitions are something we
don't have much experience with in this country. This makes it really
hard to anticipate all the possible problems that may come up. And to
organize one of this magnitude is simply unprecidented in North
America. Hats off to the guys who pulled this thing off.
And finally, may I humbly suggest that folks (especially those who
were not even present for the event) keep this in mind before they get
too critical about how things were handled. Thank you. Maybe I'll go
home and take a nap now.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From blckhole@ripco.com (Keith Morehouse - WB9TIY) Thu Jul 18 22:35:52 1996
From: blckhole@ripco.com (Keith Morehouse - WB9TIY) (Keith Morehouse - WB9TIY)
Subject: Bencher Paddles
References: <m0ugyrp-000Jq1B@rci.ripco.com>
Message-ID: <31EEAE38.5789@ripco.com>
ehayes@VNET.IBM.COM wrote:
>
> A similar question.....what type/brand of key do most folks use?
The old BROWN BROTHERS keys RULE !
...but good luck finding one (heh-heh..) !!
---------------------------###-----------------------------
PROBE ELECTRONICS 100 Higgins Road, Park Ridge IL 60068 USA
Keith J. Morehouse / WB9TIY / Society of Midwest Contesters
847-696-2828 FAX: 847-698-2045 e-mail: blckhole@ripco.com
---------------------------###-----------------------------
>From dave@egh.com (David Clemons) Thu Jul 18 22:52:27 1996
From: dave@egh.com (David Clemons) (David Clemons)
Subject: removal of IK0HBN
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607181750.B28331-0100000@newman.egh.com>
Well, I must say that I stirred up a hornet's nest on this one.
At the risk of stirring it up some more, let me try to clarify a couple
of points in response to several who responded to my comments.
I believe that Ron (N1PBT) and Charles (K3WW) are making the same
point - that the WRTC officials tried to avoid the situation of some
friend (or group of friends) only working their buddy in an attempt to
bolster his score. I do not have a complaint against trying to avoid
that situation. Perhaps some may remember that I was one of the ones
who voiced a concern that local packet networks might have spots like
"Hey, K6A is Bill and Bob 14.151". As it was reported after the contest,
this did not appear to happen this time around.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought I made it clear that my
larger concern was for this type of practice becoming common in other
contests. I mentioned that I was thankful that ARRL and IARU didn't
seem to be doing this yet, although some other groups might be. I mentioned
that there have been a couple of relatively recent contests where a handful
of qsos made a real difference. And no, I didn't think that IK0HBN
contacted K1KI's group only because they were friends. Nor did I think that
there were any other qsos with any other 1x1 for the same reason.
However, it seems that my friend Don tried to do me a totally
unsolicited favor by giving me a qso in the contest. I am sure that every
active contest operator has had this happen at one time or another, perhaps
in every serious contest effort. Most operators are probably never aware
of it. If I hadn't run across Don at the club meeting and asked how he did
in the contest, neither would I have known. The fact that it happens should
not reflect poorly on either party. Since it is a legitimate contact (not
planned upon by either party), it should certainly be considered just as
valid as any other qso.
In K1KI's WRTC case, and my IARU case, removal of the qsos in
question would not affect our relative standing with the scores of the
competition. However, what do you do in Sweepstakes when you have all
sections except VE1 at 2300 Sunday night? Isn't it a legitimate option
to get on a band that might be open to that area and call "CQ Maritime
Provinces"? (Doing this certainly will cost you in qso rate.) If you are
fortunate enough to have a VE9 come back to you, and you can walk him
through the exchange, shouldn't that contact count? If all this happens,
do you want to bet that he is not going to be a unique? Would you like
to lose the clean sweep because of that? Should the ARRL take up a
policy of unique removals (... a situation I do not presently foresee...),
you would lose your clean sweep mug. Once again, I am thankful that
they have not chosen to do so because this example is not contrived. If
it wasn't for that thoughtful non-contester, I would have missed my mug
in 1995.
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>From dave@egh.com (David Clemons) Thu Jul 18 23:08:15 1996
From: dave@egh.com (David Clemons) (David Clemons)
Subject: IK0HBN, etc.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607181739.A28450-0100000@newman.egh.com>
Messages from Trey and I have been crossing in transit all afternoon.
Thank you for reading my message a second time Trey! I did not intend
for my comments to be criticizing the WRTC officials at all. I had
already added my accolades for their work to the many others who did the
same on Monday. I am sure that I could not have adequately stood in the
shoes of the competitors, judges, or organizers.
Hopefully everyone by now knows that I am voicing a concern that this
method might be taken up seriously by log checkers in some of the regular
(i.e., non WRTC-like) competitions. I think that unique analysis can be a
useful tool in giving contest officials hints as to where to investigate,
but should never be used alone as a reason to delete qsos.
I have probably used up enough bandwidth airing my opinions on
"uniques", so I will cease sending messages on this subject. If there is
anyone yet unconvinced of my motives, or the validity of my real life
examples, so be it.
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Thu Jul 18 23:16:49 1996
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: uniques
This doesn't happen in all contests - heck, I made one QSO in a
Sprint, wasn't disqualified, won a certificate for top scorer on
my team and was listed among those with a 100% copy record for
the contest. So at least N6TR doesn't throw out uniques there,
he treats them very kindly.
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu
>From floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Thu Jul 18 21:01:21 1996
From: floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: IARU 96 Scores IV
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960718200121.216ffac8@interpath.com>
IARU 1996 RAW SCORES
Compiled by
>>WA4ZXA<< (floydjr@interpath.com)
Date Posted: 07/18/96
CALL PWR SCORE QSO's PTS ZONES HQ
________________________________________________________________________
SINGLE OPERATOR - PHONE
TM1C (F5MZN) HP 853,649 1579 88 43
DL1FY HP 103,008 367 1073 96
WB5VZL HP 625,416 1604 4738 101 31
VE6JY HP 619,780 1403 4660 98 35
WB2NQT 464,572 1079 3139 94 54
K4VUD HP 376,124 1332 77 24
WB1GQR (WB2JSJ) HP 350,208 1334 3072 77 37
WA4ZXA LP 181,480 759 1745 66 38
VA3WTO LP 129,350 783 2587 39 11
W7LZP HP 116,795 507 1645 57 14
N1PBT LP 101,926 575 1243 54 28
K3IXD HP 84,854 456 52 25
KB1GW LP 78,975 435 975 47 34
KS4XG LP 77,841 343 961 50 31
NZ3I LP 31,610 211 545 40 18
KF9YH LP 16,606 193 437 25 13
SINGLE OPERATOR - CW
LY4AA HP 833,301 1393 189
IK0HBN HP 443,360 861 2771 76 84
HB9HFN HP 413,910 1142 3066 67 68
PA0RCT LP 265,356 698 2106 56 70
W2SC 1,148,775 1979 102 57
W1WEF 963,776 1922 95 53
K5GN HP 960,642 1721 5787 118 48
K4PQL HP 877,600 1614 5485 102 58
K1VUT HP 645,120 1390 4480 81 63
K7UP HP 488,355 1437 4651 105
AA8AV LP 407,445 1213 115
N4BP HP 357,312 1406 3722 96
KB1H (K1EBY) HP 304,220 828 2870 65 41
W3GOI HP 302,253 791 2723 78 33
N6KI HP 293,328 1018 3024 77 20
N0DH/7 HP 287,823 837 2593 90 21
W1IHN HP 277,112 1004 2948 61 33
WV5S HP 208,505 717 61 24
WD4AHZ LP 204,300 715 100
W7ZRC HP 202,440 884 2892 55 15
K3JT HP 152,457 607 1713 61 28
W2UP HP 129,808 476 45 31
K1EPJ LP 108,697 525 1489 46 27
KG5U QRP 88,576 454 1384 46 18
KM0L HP 85,302 470 1354 63
WB0OLA LP 60,966 365 1129 39 15
AA8SM 51,362 356 842 42 19
WA7UVJ LP 39,100 402 850 38 8
KB0IHM LP 36,518 446 1178 25 6
W3CPB LP 28,000 208 508 32 24
VK1FF LP 13,892 130 604 17 6
SINGLE OPERATOR - MIXED
SN2B (SP2FAX) 1,457,652 2100 110 91
SM5IMO 783,364 1553 5293 84 64
IK2VJF 197,784 574 1476 66 68
YB1AQS 169,454 355 1569 74 34
PA0COE 74,880 320 960 78
W9RE HP 1,027,952 2082 6268 110 54
K8AZ (K8NZ) 1,003,392 2030 6432 108 48
AA4NC 707,427 1625 5319 90 43
WZ4F 594,270 1622 4402 98 37
W6XR/2 531,320 1590 71 41
VE3RM HP 411,290 1087 3739 67 43
W1GD HP 272,136 581 2001 79 57
AA4GA LP 252,450 909 2475 71 31
K0DI 207,759 1025 3011 60 9
KA9FOX (@W9UP) HP 204,225 959 2723 58 17
NS0B HP 159,422 656 2018 57 22
WB5B HP 152,412 626 1954 60 18
K3CR (KB3AFT) LP 143,980 697 1565 60 32
K8JLF LP 101,371 365 1139 50 39
N3BDA LP 82,810 318 910 56 35
WA8YRS LP 76,711 609 1871 41
NI8L HP 23,560 294 760 21 10
WT1O LP 22,765 335 785 20 9
K7FR 22,607 201 611 29 8
MULITOPERATOR
RU6LWZ 1,553,307 2213 6783 127 102
SL0CB 1,260,290 1914 6530 103 90
IQ4T 1,046,640 1756 5880 106 72
HG5C 831,552 1244 5856 78 64
S50E 790,540 1484 5452 80 65
W7OM 793,800 1526 4536 112 63
N3BB 705,500 1894 5644 95 30
NC0P 685,446 1575 138
WT2Q 672,130 1437 8 91 58
KA4RRU 531,069 1383 133
N4TO HP 453,096 1314 3596 82 44
KJ6HO HP 376,225 1291 3725 87 14
K6XO/7 359,450 1445 74 17
KB2R (@K1VR) 213,615 771 2115 60 41
KX8D 201,465 893 2035 69 30
VE7CFD LP 191,828 915 2821 60 8
AC5CT 56,180 359 1060 41 12
K3WW 45,270 189 30 15
HEADQUARTERS STATIONS
W1AW/3 (@W3LPL) HQ 5,139,207 8017 21147 166 77
PI4AA HQ 3,559,710 4315 15477 134 96
OPREATOR LIST MULIT
NC0P NC0P,WA0ETC,WD0GVY,WA0FLS,WR0G
K6XO/7 N5CT,KG7TE,KI7WX,AB7GM,K6XO
KX8D N9DHN,N9WHG
VE7CFD VE7CFD,VE7CQK
W7OM W7OM,W1NG
KJ6HO KJ6HO,AG8L,KC6CEX
N4TO N4TO,WB4EYX,WB4MAI,WB4OSN
W1AW/3 AA3NM,K3DI,K3NA,K3RA,KA2AEV,KJ4VG,N3ADL,N3QYA,N5OKR,ND3A,ND3F,
W3LPL,W3MR,WA3WJD,WB4NFS,WM2H,WN3K,WR3E,WR3Z
IQ4T IK4HVR,IK4SXJ,I4IFL
HG5C HA1AG,HA5LV,HA5MO,HA5WE,N9NC,W0YR
SL0CB SM0GNU,SM0TXT
S50E S51B,S51XE,S50U
WT2Q KB1W,KY1H,NU1P,KE6BER,AA1AS,WM1K,WT2Q
N3BB N3BB,AA5RB
RU6LWZ UA6LO,UA6LV,RV6LNA,RN6MM,UA6LFQ,RB6AJJ/6,UR5IBG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
REMEMBER THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL AND DO NOT SEND ME ANY LOGS OR ATTACHED
FILES!!
I placed all the HP and LP together so no one would get mislead into
thinking they have won something they did not. The scores are still marked
HP and LP so you can tell how you did against your own power.
If you send me a score with only single op on it and no phone, cw, or
mixed on it, I will put you in the mixed section. Send me a correction
and I will move you.
I assumed from reading the Rules that there is no High and Low Power
Classes. Most people are sending in whether they used HP or LP. Since
they are taking the time to do this I will break them down for them.
Where you see a number between the zones and Hq columns means that the
person added them together.
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: >> floydjr@interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From duerbusc@MO.NET (Joseph J. Duerbusch) Fri Jul 19 06:26:54 1996
From: duerbusc@MO.NET (Joseph J. Duerbusch) (Joseph J. Duerbusch)
Subject: Bencher Paddles/.Brown Bros Paddles
References: <m0ugyrp-000Jq1B@rci.ripco.com> <31EEAE38.5789@ripco.com>
Message-ID: <31EF1C9E.58B7@mo.net>
Hi Keith, in the 70's I called Ed Brown for a set of Brown Bros
paddles to go with my new accukeyer out of QST.
This was on a Friday and he told me to come to his home on Monday.
He built it over the weekend and gave it to me in his living room.
Then got a tour of the factory in his basement.
I think that when I die, I will have it buryed with me.
Only kidding, I will make sure to pass it on to some deserving ham,
that is if morse code is still around.
Joe K0BX St. Louis MO - Home town of BB Keys
duerbusc@mo.net
>From tree@lady.cetech.com (Larry Tyree) Thu Jul 18 23:39:56 1996
From: tree@lady.cetech.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Them uniques
Message-ID: <199607182239.PAA02039@lady.cetech.com>
Been a lot of talk about uniques the past few months. It seems to
be a subject that gets a lot of people excited! I thought I might
spend a little bandwidth talking about them from my viewpoint.
Specific unique calls may or may not be a busted call - and I
doubt you will see them removed from all contest logs. The
only exception I can think of is the KCJ (Keyman's Club of Japan)
contest where if they can't verify your QSO with the other log, it
comes out of your log - no questions asked. In other words, if
you work 10 guys and don't send in a log - then those 10 guys
wasted their time working you. Pretty extreme.
The IK0HBN is a good example of a unique that was real. So was
KC7KMC in the CQ WW contest (only one contact was made by
KC7KMC and it showed up in the database as a unique). The
unique calls are not removed from the logs. However, they
are looked at carefully. If a unique call is decided to be
impossible or extremely unlikely (like W6QSS on CW) it may be
reclassified as a "bad" callsign and thus removed from the
log. Also, if the callsign doesn't appear in the callbook, it
will be removed. One well known contester has occasionally
handed out a few QSOs with his previous call which has been
expired for many years. In fact, I think this technique discovers
people who forgot to renew their license better than anything the
FCC does.
However, after working with unique analysis reports for almost
10 years now, it is very evident that the unique percentage
means something important. In general, the higher the
unique percentage in a log, the higher the error rate. That
doesn't mean all uniques are bad calls, but it does mean that
someone with a 10 percent unique rate isn't copying calls as
well as someone with a 2 percent unique rate. These are the range
of numbers that we actually see in real logs.
There have been cases where someone won a contest with a grossly
higher unique rate than the number two station who was only
slightly behind the winner.
This is terrible - but the reason it happens is because a lot of
people are afraid to remove "unique" QSOs because they might
be good. This happened in a contest where the unique data
was generated for the log checkers, but it was evidently ignored.
So, what do we do with this metric? It is meaningful, but removing
them causes everyone to start posting examples of unique QSOs
that were good. I feel it is time to start thinking about how we
incorperate meaningful statistics into the score adjustments so
that we don't have people winning contests with higher error
rates.
There are two approaches:
1. Make a rule that says no credit will be given for unique
contacts.
This is probably not going to happen. Based upon my
conversations with people, they just aren't willing to limit
things this way.
2. Factor the unqiue percentage into the penaly of QSOs that are
proven to be bad callsigns.
Now here is an idea that just might work. We don't actually remove
any of the uniques - thus, nobody should be upset about a specific
callsign being removed. However, the overall unique percentage
is used to determine the penalty assessed when a busted callsign
is found. Depending on the contest, this is something like 2 or 3
QSOs. Well, guess what - the good unique rates are in the
range of 1 to 3 percent. For most people, it won't make any
difference. However, for sloppy logs, it will start adding up.
Not only will there be more bad QSOs found, but the penalty for
them will be higher.
I think this makes sense. Part of the justification for a penalty
is that you can't check every single callsign in the log to see
if it is correct. If you find some bad calls, chances are there are
plenty more. The more you find using a common yardstick, the
more there probably are in the log. Since it has been shown that
a higher unique percentage indicates there is a higher error rate,
using this to determine the penalty makes sense.
You will be hearing more about this concept over the next year or two.
Perhaps we will move to the point where we can improve the
quality of the results without controversy using software tools
that allow everyone's log to be checked to the same degree.
That is why I keep working on the tool to make it better each
year so we can achieve that goal.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
PS: It was mentioned in a previous post that the name of the log
checking software was XTree Gold. This is not true. XTree is
a program that some people use to view files. While I am good
friends with the people who wrote that, I was not involved with
it (except for its predecessor WASH which ran on CP/M).
The name of the program is CALLTEST. If you are interested in using
this tool for log checking, contact Dick Norton, N6AA for more
information (I just write the code).
|