[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots?

To: Robert Brandon <rb@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots?
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Reply-to: n4zr@contesting.com
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:44:59 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I don't think that we want to introduce noise into the data - such 
randomization needs to be applied at the user's option.  Doesn't 
Win-Test have such an option?

I'm afraid that both kinds of spots suffer from the same problem - that 
is, both Skimmer and traditional spots are rounded to the nearest 0.1 
KHz.  You'll see some degree of scattering among Skimmer spots on the 
RBN due to calibration differences, but most RBN contributors are 
working hard to get on frequency within 50 Hz or so.

73, Pete N4ZR

The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at 
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000

On 2/21/2011 10:32 AM, Robert Brandon wrote:
> I'm afraid, however, that Skimmer spots are exacerbating the zero beat
> pileup problems K6VVA wrote about.  Human ops won't always have a station
> perfectly tuned when they spot so multiple spotters could spread the pile
> out a bit.  Skimmers, on the other hand, should precisely report the
> frequency.  Maybe Skimmer could a minor, random frequency offset option.
CQ-Contest mailing list

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