[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# Central Count Reader Testing

- To: <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: Central Count Reader Testing
- From: "Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:51:33 -0800

The following information may be useful in determining future course of action for central count. The following test was run. I tried five Lucid readers without shimming (.007 width of ballot paper) using 50% ballots that had been "smoothed" and 50% not smoothed. Smoothing means that someone takes a smooth blunt object and presses the crease made by the fold. I then shimmed 5 units. This is what I noticed: A significant improvement when shimmed, I assume allowing for the timing and the fold dragging on the way thru the machine, affecting how the machine tracks the timing marks thru the machine. The shimmed units were somewhat variable. That is one machine of the five had consistently higher number of "no ender marks", "calibration errors" etc. with or without smoothing. The "smoothing" process greatly affects the ballots going thru the units smoothly. The folks in Santa Barbara have accepted this process and seem ok with it. The "low staffing" sites, such as Humboldt, bristle at the thought of having to manually smooth out the fold on each ballot. But they may not have a choice. Conclusion: Variability in Lucid readers can be significant. Folds are a definite contributing factor to thruput. Shimming for thickness of folds helps in central count.

- Follow-Ups:
  - RE: Central Count Reader Testing
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>

- Prev by Date: No phone
- Next by Date: RE: Central Count Reader Testing
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread