Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+More\s+busted\s+calls\s+in\s+RBN\s+than\s+human\s+spots\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:38:23 -0700
Got my first taste of the RBN at K0RF this weekend. Maybe K1TTT can do an analysis, but it seemed that the Skimmer missed lots of dits at the beginning of calls, as well as picking up stray letters.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00238.html (7,223 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Barry Gross <n1eu.barry@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:27:03 +0000
W2UP commented: "Got my first taste of the RBN at K0RF this weekend. Maybe K1TTT can do an analysis, but it seemed that the Skimmer missed lots of dits at the beginning of calls, as well as picking u
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00246.html (8,536 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Henk Remijn PA5KT <pa5kt@remijn.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:26:27 +0100
I did monitor RBN and the manual cluster through the full contest. In the manual cluster I have seen myself spotted wrong 1 time. In rbn I found 4 errors, 1x PA5T, 2x PA5K, 1x PA5KTE. No GA5KT, what
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00247.html (8,538 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Luc PY8AZT <py8azt@dxbrasil.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:33:42 -0300
Barry, I lot of guys worked a Skimmer Phatom _GW7T_ (and some variations) last weekend - no better way to find out non-Assisted Claimmig Stations. I got 205 dupes out 4k QSOs, could be more If I didn
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00248.html (9,091 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Brandon" <rb@austin.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:32:04 -0600
Sure, there were some anomalies, and for some reason W3LPL seemed to be especially susceptible. I saw them regularly spotted as LW3LPL and also M3LPL, I believe. K1AR was also mis-spotted, but I thin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00250.html (9,409 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:44:59 -0500
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 su
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00258.html (9,717 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:24:52 -0500
This already exists, Barry. Check <http://reversebeacon.net/analysis/>. It is graphical and only handles one skimmer and one 24-hour day at a time, but up to 10 stations can be compared at once. It's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00260.html (9,907 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Barry Gross <n1eu.barry@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:09:01 +0000
That's very cool! Thanks guys. 73, Barry N1EU _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00262.html (8,484 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] More busted calls in RBN than human spots? (score: 1)
Author: Fred Dennin <fdennin@numail.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:05:54 -0500
Luc, You are in our log 7 times, 5 of which are valid QSOs with your station. We logged PW7T: 2 times on 80 and 20 1 time on 40 1 time on 15 and 1 time on 10 That's 5 GOOD Qs logged and 2 Dupes. We d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-02/msg00263.html (11,217 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu