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

Sat May 9 21:02:04 EDT 2015

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