[Top] [All Lists]

Bencher Paddles

Subject: Bencher Paddles
From: ehayes@VNET.IBM.COM (ehayes@VNET.IBM.COM)
Date: Thu Jul 18 14:55:48 1996
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?


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>


        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?


...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

>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: <>


Compiled by
>>WA4ZXA<<  (floydjr@interpath.com)

Date Posted: 07/18/96

CALL             PWR       SCORE      QSO's      PTS     ZONES     HQ


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


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


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


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


W1AW/3  (@W3LPL) HQ     5,139,207     8017     21147     166       77
PI4AA            HQ     3,559,710     4315     15477     134       96 


W7OM     W7OM,W1NG
S50E     S51B,S51XE,S50U



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

>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 

There are two approaches: 

1. Make a rule that says no credit will be given for unique 

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

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).

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>