CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A Comments, Data and Log Checking

To: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A Comments, Data and Log Checking
From: Yuri Blanarovich <k3bu@optimum.net>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 21:02:04 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Problem with emails Eh?
Maybe proof that did not have internet service?

Anyone tried to travel from Russian occupied Ukraine to Martinique and back and be in full contact with Emails?

Took me full day to get home from Dominican Republic with broken Wi-Fi service at the Punta Cana airport and unintelligible PA system. Only Kindle reader "worked" (unassssisted), was able to read "Grain Brain" and preserve some sanity.

73  Yuri, K3BU/HI
 

 
 

 On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 02:25 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
 
 > With all due respect to Randy and the WW committee, it seems the entire case
boils down to two questions: How probable is it that a guy with 15 million points is going to ignore an email threatening a DQ? And, Was it fair to email a guy in or close to a war zone and request a response within five
days?

Given the likely answers are 1. Not very, and 2. Not really, should WW have
tried a little harder to contact Dim first?

Even if he is guilty, surely the right to face your accuser exists in
contesting, too. This is probably an opportunity for improvement for WW.

73, kelly
ve4xt

On 5/9/15 10:40 AM, "José Nunes CT1BOH"  wrote:

Stan and Kelly


Don't take me wrong, but I'm not going to elaborate more on
TO7A log.

I was not involved in the checking of this log, I did not see the
material
presented by the log checker(s), and as you can imagine, being a
member of
CQWW CC, I'm not about to start a side log checking investigation,
that has
been done, with the result we all know.


My post is beyond what TO7A
did or not, my post was just intended to show
(using public data like RBN and
logs) that log checking is far more complex
than it seems and taking:

- log
lines without the context of the situation
- assumptions about the way the
operator may or may have not operated,
without listening to his audio/video
and SDR recording
- assumption of the way he stacks or not mutls, while doing
dual CQ

is very misleading.

73 José



On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Stan
Stockton  wrote:

José


When I looked at the log I
estimated less than 100 S&P QSOs total out of
more than 8,000 contacts.  Did
I mess up and there are really over 600?
You have the computer skills to say
for sure.  How many S&P QSOs were there
and how many were new
multipliers?

TO7A log http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/2014cw/to7a.log has
35 S&P "event"
situations, that netted 638 QSOs, 225 countries and 69
zones.


Here it sounds like there were 35 times he left a run frequency
to S&P and
each time "averaged" netting over 18 QSOs in the S&P mode with
almost 300
multipliers as a result...  Misleading at the least, if the count
is about
15% of your number.

You must be counting all the QSOs and
multipliers made on the S&P radio
AND all the QSOs and multipliers from the
run radio on another band until
both radios were in running mode again?


If for some reason it is important to know about how many QSOs he made on> the run radio while other was S&P, tell us how many of those 225 countries

and 69 zones were from the several hundred stations who called him versus>
the S&P QSO multiplier count.

Remember TO7A only had 8 minutes and worked
the 8 multipliers out of 293
possible unknown stations on the band.
Did
the multipliers he worked sign their call every minute? Was it possible
to
go from one to another in the 8 minutes time frame? or was it needed to
stay
more than 8 minutes to get the calls in case they sign only every two
or
three QSOs like one would expect from juicy multipliers in heavy pile-up

situations, with high rate, as can be seen from the public logs?


I'll
add a question to your list.  Is it possible he already had the call
signs
in a band map from prior, short periods of S&P preparation and when
the rate
slowed just a bit he went through the list pouncing on them one at
a
time.

Yes, there is a lot of work to be done to justify a disqualification
if it
is to be based on someone(s) belief or feeling.

73...Stan,
K5GO


Sent from my iPad

On May 9, 2015, at 2:39 AM, José Nunes CT1BOH
 wrote:

It is amazing to me, how some people jump to
conclusions without deep
diving into the data.
Some just look at some log
lines and feel free to say whatever, as if that
alone would mean anything at
all.

First a disclaimer:
Even tough I am a member for CQWW Contest
Committee and have been involved
in log checking, for the 2014 events, I did
not participate in any checking
process at all. Because of that, I feel free
to comment.

The following is done with just public data available on

http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/ and http://www.reversebeacon.net/raw_data/

This is not a log checking analyses. It is just a brief look, an example,> of
the deep analyses needed to make log checking decisions

TO7A is an
extraordinary log that has two interesting characteristics:

1. Dueling CQ
on two bands - No problem with that. Videos/audio provided by
Dmitry on his
youtube account show it well.
2. S&P "events" - Unfortunately, none of the
S&P events are covered in his
videos

TO7A log
http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/2014cw/to7a.log has 35 S&P "event"

situations, that netted 638 QSOs, 225 countries and 69 zones.

I will look
into just one of these 35 S&P events as an example.

Event number 3 with 8
QSOs on 80 meters. 8 QSO, 8 multiplers, three of them
double mults (KH7XX,
TF3SG, YN2CC)

Event starts at 06:38 and ends at 06:46, just 8 minutes
during day 1 of the
contest. It should be noted that, before this small 8
minute S&P event,
TO7A had been already active on the band. He already had
50 countries and
10 zones. So this new S&P event, was not the type of, new
on the band where
every QSO is a mult, or with band marginal, where one can
jump to sparse
stations on the band, very easy to find, using a waterfall
scope for
example. At the same time of the S&P event TO7A is also running on
40. So
this is classic SO2R activity - run on one band, S&P on another:


TO7A station 1 is running on 40. Works 13 stations at 97.5 QSOs/H during
the
8 minutes.
TO7A station 2 is S&P on 80. Works 8 stations, all of them
multipliers
(OH0X, KH7XX, TF3XG, NP4Z, YN2CC, NP2P, VP2MDX, V47T), during
the same 8
minutes.

With RBN data from Reversebeacon site, we can
re-create a so call "TO7A
band map", to show what was available and what he
needed.
Download RBN data, filter it by band, frequency, call, then cross
check
with log and with minimal work this can be done using excel
spreadsheet:

There were 293 station running on 80 meters at the time of
the 8 minute
period, from 3500 to 3600khz.
This is about average 3
stations per 1 KHZ span - a crowded band - and
indeed it was, as one would
expect from beginning of contest, day 1, with
band open to Europe and USA.

60 stations spotted by RBN and running on the band, had already been worked

before, by TO7A, in his previous activity on the band:

So:

293
stations calling CQ and making QSOs on the band from 3500 to 3600Khz
233
station are needed QSOs
29 station are needed multipliers

But looking
closer to those 29 needed multipliers, the times they were
spotted (from RBN
data) and the QSOs they made (using the public logs), one
can see that 14 of
them, even tough spotted on the RBN and on a "band map",
were not available
to work, by the time TO7A could have find them (remember
TO7A log shows a
steady up tuning during those 8 minutes, 06:38-3526,
06:41-3540, 06:42-3546,
06:42-3547, 06:43-3549, 06:45-3552, 06:46-3554,
06:46-3560).
So, in the
end, there were 15 possible needed multipliers


So the bottom line
is:

TO7A is running on 40 @ 97.5 QSO/H
TO7A is S&P on 80

In 8
minutes, he is facing 293 station that he does not know who they are,
on a
crowded band.
60 stations are dupes, 233 are new and 15 of them happen to be
multipliers.
He makes 8 QSOs, all of them multipliers in 8 minutes.
He has
to pick a signal out of the 293, stop and listen to QSOs finnish or
CQ call,
get each call, then call the station, then go to the next one,
wait for a
call,...,and so on. Or he "just" finds the mults out of the
band...


Again, this is just to show you guys, the type of data needed to look at

logs.

Remember TO7A had 35 S&P events like the one described above.... I'm
just
looking here, at one of them.

CQWW Log checkers, also have
additional tools, like SDR recordings, that
will help check things
further.

Remember TO7A only had 8 minutes and worked the 8 multipliers out
of 293
possible unknown stations on the band.
Did the multipliers he
worked sign their call every minute? Was it possible
to go from one to
another in the 8 minutes time frame? or was it needed to
stay more than 8
minutes to get the calls in case they sign only every two
or three QSOs like
one would expect from juicy multipliers in heavy pile-up
situations, with
high rate, as can be seen from the public logs?


Log checking is much
more complex, goes much deeper and takes a lot more
hours than most people
think....
A log that deserves attention need hour of manual work, hours of
going
through SDR files, hours of preparing the material, hours of peer
log
checker group discussion until a decision can be made.
Please give
credit to those who do it, that things are done in a
"professional way" with
much thought, much discussion...

Just looking at a log line, and saying
whatever, is not enough.

73 CT1BOH - José Nunes
--
José Nunes

CONTEST CT1BOH - htt p://www.qsl.net/ct1boh



_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest@contesting.com

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest




--
José
Nunes
CONTEST CT1BOH -
http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh
_______________________________________________
CQ-C
ontest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq
-contest



_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>