[CQ-Contest] More possibilities checked ...

Dave Franks k2xr at zajil.net
Thu Apr 29 01:47:32 EDT 1999

(Sorry Tree, I meant to send it to the list )

>Interesting discussion about 67 versus 72.
>Here is more data:
>The QSO numbers where the wrong check was copied are:
>10, 148, 197, 244, 540, 617, 634, 686, 698, 830 and 887.
>There were no other errors made on the check!
>Very interesting.

     No discernible pattern that I can see.  I really thought that
perhaps Joe AD1C had hit the nail on the head, so I tried to duplicate
his theory in practice.  I tried 'accidentally' hitting the 6 and 7 keys
simultaneosly. I tried it with both the left hand and the right. I tried
to favor the 6 key as opposed to the 7 key.  Regardless of my approach,
9 out of ten times the 7 came before the 6.    Undaunted, I reviewed my
busted exchanges looking for wrong checks that consisted of side by side
numbers on the keyboard. No correlation detectable.  The only thing I
didn't (couldn't) check, was the same experiment using the other two
operators at our station.  They are both left handed, whereas I am right
handed... perhaps the results would be reversed in their case, and a
possible explanation would still be at hand.   Food for thought at the
very least.  Regardless, we will all be a lot more attentive next time.

    Hearty congratualtions to Gene N2BIM on the clean 79x79.  He had
checked in with us on Sunday to say hello, but we found out about his
goal when he informed us he already had our section in the log.  I seem
to recall someone saying this was a near impossibility not to long ago.
Curious to know how many 79x79 logs were received.

      Dave  K2XR at ZAJIL.NET

       Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list