[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[Christopher Plummer]

Peter,
 
Seeing as it seems to be a problem with filters in your RX, maybe it is time for an upgrade.
 
Chris
 

> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:14:09 +0100
> From: peter at tilgate.co.uk
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
> 
> Chris, I suspect you may have been referring to me in last week's SSB 
> CC, an event I do participate in occasionally. I log by hand and so 
> it's easy and appropriate to give accurate signal reports, as well as 
> record those that I receive. If such reports are to be a mandated part 
> of the exchange, then they should have some use or meaning. To be 
> driven by the limitations of automated logging aids is entirely 
> unacceptable, however I suspect that many of these have options to 
> properly set up signal reporting. On Wednesday, only a few exceptional 
> (mainly local) signals were perfectly readable (R5), others were 
> perturbed to a greater or lesser extent by other close-in stuff and were 
> generally reported as 3 (readable with considerable difficulty) or 4 
> (with practically no difficulty). I keep the AGC switched off and so 
> received signal strengths are always subjective, but then so is the 
> RS(T) code, as defined. My estimates varied between S5 and S9 (fairly 
> good to very strong), which is how they were reported. Far from being 
> sharp practice, this is BEST PRACTICE and should be fully supported by 
> whatever logging tools people choose to use.
> 
> The alternative is to decide to do away with signal reports altogether 
> of course - a pity, but I'd have no real objection - however that would 
> be up to the Contest Committee. And I really don't see why there should 
> be any difference between HF and V/UHF in this regard, especially when 
> DX on 80 and 160m is often at ESP signal levels.
> 
> 73, Peter G3LET
> 
> Christopher Plummer wrote:
> 
> >David,
> > 
> >To add my halfpenneth. In a recent 80m Club contest one particular contestant was giving every contact 47 or 48, he was hoping, I suspect, that I would log 58 or even 59 and thus get a Busted contact, and he would happily claim the contact as I gave him 59, or whatever my logging program prompted. I have spoken to a number of other contestants from this session and this competitor has done the same to them. I regard this as sharp practice and should be curtailed by a warning, surely every contact he made would not have been readability 4?
> > 
> >Did anyone else get the same treatment?
> > 
> >Chris G8APB
> > 
> >
> > 
> >
> >>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:06:11 +0000
> >>From: g3yyd at btinternet.com
> >>To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
> >>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
> >>
> >>I see my 59 for all QSOs provoke the expected knee jerk re-action from 
> >>some contesters. The HF contesters worked out long ago that the rules do 
> >>not specify that the report has to be accurate. Even if the rules did, 
> >>how is it enforceable? QED give 59 saves typing at both ends and hence 
> >>removes a possibility of error in that part of the exchange.
> >>
> >>Personally I think the RS(T) report should be removed from contests and 
> >>some do just that. It is the serial number and locator code that is the 
> >>real exchange in a VHF+ contest. Even the locator code can come from a 
> >>call history file so that leaves the serial number as being the really 
> >>unique part of the exchange.
> >>
> >>73 David G3YYD
> >>
> >>PS just seen Stewart's post in similar vain.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>UK-Contest mailing list
> >>UK-Contest at contesting.com
> >>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> >> 
> >>
> > 
> >_______________________________________________
> >UK-Contest mailing list
> >UK-Contest at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> >
> > 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest