Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+SS\s+UBN\s+Report\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+SS\s+UBN\s+Report\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: jpryor@arches.uga.edu (Jay Pryor); Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:03:35 -0400; Just received my UBN report for the CWSS. Fortunately I was able to make a significant improvement in my own error rate, but it bothers me that so many other stations busted the info I sent. Of cours; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00008.html (7,857 bytes)
2. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: aa4ga@contesting.com (Lee Hiers); Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:05:59 -0400; About UBNs, yes, but I'm not getting into that... Anyway, while this is probably rare, don't discount the possibility that your sending may have a problem, even if it is computer generated. You could; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00009.html (9,146 bytes)
3. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: gary@noblepub.com (Gary Breed); Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:35:06 -0400; Re: other people's copying 1. A couple contests delete QSOs for BOTH stations if copied wrong. 2. A certain number of casual operators won't ask for repeats when they should (can't copy accurately at; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00011.html (9,159 bytes)
4. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: aa4ga@contesting.com (Lee Hiers); Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:26:27 -0400; TR will let you insert half-spaces between letters...I sometimes do this between G and A in the exchange. It may even be more configurable than that, I don't remember, but the half-space generally ta; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00012.html (8,541 bytes)
5. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: aa4nn@juno.com (Joe L Blackwell); Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 22:10:32 -0400; Hi Jay, At the risk of time consumed, if your exchange is tricky, you might send it twice. Or slow down. Someone answers your call, you'd expect them to copy the exchange. As you say, the sending sta; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00014.html (8,740 bytes)
6. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:08:12 -0500; With my call of W4NTI I am constantly getting things like W4NT, W4KI, W4ND, etc. For a while I even considered changing it to "accomidate" those that can't copy CW. I decided it wasn't my problem. Da; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00015.html (9,416 bytes)
7. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: K4BAI@worldnet.att.net (John T. Laney, III); Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 15:24:21 -0700; Yes, it COULD be such a problem. Once at NQ4I, we had RF feedback problem on 80 such that the other stations couldn't even get our call whether computer sent or not. (The most common guess was NG4E.); /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00022.html (8,344 bytes)
8. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 15:23:18 -0500; John, Actually the problem is at the receiving end. There is not a lot one can do if the receiving station can't decipher correctly what is sent. Could this be an example of the tape vs on the air sy; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00023.html (9,934 bytes)
9. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: w4an@contesting.com (Bill Fisher - W4AN); Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 16:51:37 -0400 (EDT); I always slow my report down for both the SS and the Sprint. It always saves me time over the course of the contest. In the Sprint I might send the exchange 4 WPM slower than I'm sending normally. My; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00024.html (9,616 bytes)
10. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: aa4ga@contesting.com (Lee Hiers); Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 00:10:59 -0400; Just so there's no misunderstanding...I was not implying that Jay did have such a problem, just that it is a possibility to consider, and that one should not blindly accept that their sending is perf; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00025.html (9,009 bytes)
11. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: jpryor@arches.uga.edu (Jay Pryor); Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:58:02 -0400; The fact is, I had 28 stations (3.2%) that busted some part of the exchange I sent. That's out of 903 raw QSOs/887 valid QSOs. Is the 3.2% error rate in the ballpark of what others in SECC experience; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00026.html (8,039 bytes)
12. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:38:48 -0400; For my very short log, I got 3 busts, for 3.7%. It would be interesting to determine what the "average" error rate was for those who sent in logs. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org Q; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00027.html (8,010 bytes)
13. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: gary@noblepub.com (Gary Breed); Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:11:40 -0400; Jay et al. I had a 4.1% "other guy" error rate (25 out of 608 valid QSOs). 10 missed QSO # 8 missed Check 4 busted the call (K8AY, K0AY, N9AY, K9AO) 1 missed Section 1 missed Prec. 1 invalid entry (?; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00028.html (8,612 bytes)
14. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: jpryor@arches.uga.edu (Jay Pryor); Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 10:31:09 -0400; Gary et al. Mine break out thusly: 12 missed # 4 wrong check 6 busted call All got the section 6 missed prec FYI. I can't remember off hand if I used NR #, or if I only sent the number. That could ma; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00029.html (9,853 bytes)
15. [SECC] SS UBN Report (score: 1): Author: ku8e1@yahoo.com (Jeffrey Clarke); Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT); Jay, We did a multi-op at KU8E (with K9NW and N8VW) and our total error rate came out to 3.9 % , which really surprised me considering I had two pretty good operators helping me out!! The big shocker; /archives//html/SECC/2000-05/msg00030.html (9,629 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]