And what was wrong with the old Log Robot?
73s John AA5JG
(ex: W5TD, NE0P, N0EEN, KA0IFG)
Confirmed 6M addict: 6M WAS #1275, 6m VUCC #1260
----- Original Message -----
From: "John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK" <k9jk73@msn.com>
To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: [VHFcontesting] The "new and improved?" ARRL Log Robot
> John K9IJ <k9ij@vx5.com> wrote:
> >
> >At 08:10 PM 6/12/2007, Norm Alexander wrote:
> >>NO. My FSK and 2.3 logs bounced.
> >>Change your 903 to 902.
> >
> >And change 1.2 to 1.2G
> >
> >John - K9IJ
> >
> >>Norm kc6zwt.
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob" <sparkygr@comcast.net>
> >>To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:54 PM
> >>Subject: [VHF] 903 & 1.2G log entries
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anybody heard anything out of arrl re: log submissions?
> >>>Bob K8DOG/R
> >>>------
> >
> >-
>
> I CAN confirm that "1.2G" worked for 1296 QSOs.
>
> I can ALSO CONFIRM that the robot says "I do not recognize 'FM' as a valid
> mode." EVEN THOUGH the Cabrillo QSO-template at
> http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/qso-template.html definitely DOES
include
> "FM" among the four items that are listed.
>
> For "FSK", I'd suggest trying "RY" but it's certainly possible that the
> robot will say the same thing about "RY" as I experienced with "FM".
>
> At least the report is a little bit more 'informative' but such a
> 'significant' change SHOULD have been 'tested' and debugged before
releasing
> it on the ARRL's (VHF) Contest "Customers". Was there an announcement
> somewhere that the "robot" was changing? If there was, >>I<< definitely
> missed it.
>
> 73, JK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|