[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[Peter Hobbs]

Chris, rather than a rx filter problem, the issues tend to be a 
combination of transmitted bandwidth, over-zealous processor settings 
and the fact that there's only bandwidth available for less than a third 
of the participants to run without adjacent channel interference.  The 
price of a popular event, as these CCs have become . . .

73, Peter G3LET

Christopher Plummer wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
> 		 	   		  
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>  
>