Log checking for Uniques

[KZ8E at bangate.compaq.com]

John W0UN writes:
>And there are many other scenarios for unique call signs to appear in a 
log
>that are perfectly valid QSOs.  I want someone operating my station to 
make

What about the guy that asks if you can slide down a kHz and agree only if 
he gives you the exchange info?

And of course, the satisfaction of tricking one of the frequency cops from 
the Good ol' Boy, Redneck, Gay Potato/Pig Farmer Rockbound Frequency Net 
wouldn't be there if the QSO didn't count.

I agree with John that a QSO shouldn't be removed just because it is 
unique.  If 50% were unique that would be an eye opener.

Earl 
kz8e at bangate.compaq.com

>From Ruthie Cunliffe <ruthie at frontiernet.net>  Mon Jan 22 19:08:43 1996
From: Ruthie Cunliffe <ruthie at frontiernet.net> (Ruthie Cunliffe)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 14:08:43 -0500
Subject: ARRL VHF SS
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960122190843.00683150 at pop.frontiernet.net>

I see that a few others are posting their scores for this
contest....soooo..here goes:

I put in about 9 hours.  My main reasons for operating were: 1) FUN  2) help
with club score  3) Local club competition  4)  YL competition within local
club  
Callsign: AA2IO   Section: WNY   Grid: FN13

MHZ       QSOs        QSO points     MULTS (grids)    SCORE

50        30             30              8             240
144      138            138             21            2898
222       21             42              8             336
432       36             72              6             432
903        9             36              3             108
1296       5             20              2              40

TOTAL    239            338             48           16224

I learned to play musical chairs here in the shack with the OM, N2NEP, and
musical xverters/rotors/microphones! All in all in was fun.  We lost 1296
late Saturday night (cable on antenna).  The bands were rather flat.  There
was a quite a bit of activity locally, as usual, which always helps to make
it fun.  I enjoyed having capabilities on all the bands and I have to thank
my OM for all his technical expertise and hard work which help make the
xverters and antennas in this QTH hum!  

73 de Ruthie, AA2IO

Ruthie Cunliffe   AA2IO      http://www.frontiernet.net/~ruthie
ruthie at frontiernet.net       fax#: 716-359-9368


>From mraz at rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz)  Mon Jan 22 19:21:57 1996
From: mraz at rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 13:21:57 CST
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <9601221921.AA05281 at maverick.aud.alcatel.com>

Dave G4BUO said:

> I know there has been interest on the contest reflector in the review
of these rigs ...

The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.


73
Kris AA5UO
mraz at aud.alcatel.com

>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu  Mon Jan 22 18:39:48 1996
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 22 Jan 1996 13:39:48 -0500
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <n1389803388.21407 at mail.ssec.wisc.edu>

>The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
>some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
>strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
>by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.


>73
>Kris AA5UO
>mraz at aud.alcatel.com

It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected, though, because the IF shift
is used to narrow the passband for CW operation.  (For some reason,
that never occurred to me.)

73,

Scott  K9MA


>From jbmitch at vt.edu (JOHN MITCHELL)  Sun Jan 21 20:49:13 1996
From: jbmitch at vt.edu (JOHN MITCHELL) (JOHN MITCHELL)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:49:13 -0500
Subject: G3SJX IC775/FT1000MP Review
Message-ID: <199601222050.PAA15646 at sable.cc.vt.edu>

>Dave G4BUO said:
>> I know there has been interest on the contest reflector in the review
>of these rigs ...
>
>The TS-870 review in the February 1996 QST addresses the problems that
>some on this reflector have noted regarding distortion in the presence of
>strong nearby signals. See the box titled "DSP in the Kenwood TS-870S"
>by Jon Bloom, KE3Z, on page 75.
>73
>Kris AA5UO
>mraz at aud.alcatel.com


I've been using an 870 since October, including during several major contests.
I have yet to experience ANY nearby large signal distortion within any 
digital passband I select (CW or SSB).

Has anyone else noticed "no problem" with the 870 in this regard?

( I do note the QST review failed to uncover some fairly serious nits, such 
as the reverb effect while monitoring tx audio in vox operations, the fairly 
useless auto-notch filter, etc. It's still the best receiver I've used...)

73, WD4MUR John


>From k3ww at fast.net (Charles Fulp)  Mon Jan 22 21:19:58 1996
From: k3ww at fast.net (Charles Fulp) (Charles Fulp)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 21:19:58 +0000
Subject: 160 M Log Checking
Message-ID: <199601222121.QAA27506 at nn.fast.net>

A few thoughts on log checking...
  I too was a bit surprised that all of N4IN's log checking techniques, seem 
to have remained in effect. When I heard Don speak on how he did the logs, 
it was very interesting, and certainly different from what most log checkers 
appeared to be doing at the time.  He apparently typed all the logs into his 
computer, and reconstructed as much of the contest as possible.  Giving 
credit for contacts with broken calls, but information that the attempt had 
been made, was certainly generous, and apparently based on his view of what 
the objective of the 160 contest was.  Throwing out possibly unverifiable 
and unlikely contacts also seems out of the norm, but was again in keeping 
with his views of the contest.  I believe that in CQ magazine contests, the 
individual Contest administrators or committees are pretty much, fully 
responsible for their own events (I may be wrong on this).  
I will agree with the majority that if contacts are eliminated just because 
the log checker thinks they were unlikely, or impossible, then the situation 
should be reviewed.  On the other hand I was under the impression that even 
in the CQWW, contacts which were unique and with calls not verifiable (say a 
prefix known not to have been issued by a given country, or a W that is not 
in the FCC Database) were removed from our logs. 
I know of cases where the ARRL has contacted stations to verify contacts 
that have appeared in certain logs.  Ultimately in cases of unusual uniques 
(especially multiple occurrences), attempting to verify the contact would be 
most appropriate.  If a unique QSO is with a station that cannot be reached 
(not in any databases, no QSL info etc), then it might be appropriate to 
remove this contact from a log.
If we get back to the philosophy of working people who are at least on the 
band for a few contacts, perhaps a rule requiring any call to appear in at 
least X number of logs say 2 or 3 or 20; whatever, would be appropriate.  
This would penalize the folks that make scheds, have rare and exotic 
friends, or who are clever enough to hear a rare station calling CQ fone 
patch, make a contest QSO, and have the rare guy realize he doesn't want to 
be in a contest and pulls the plug.  Depending on your philosophical 
position any of those could be the low or high point of a contest weekend.  

73 de Chas (Charlie on SSB)