Message-ID: <005201ca6abb$0370e780$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4B07ABA4.4060102@online.fr> <COL122-W147B75619C9604B2D2A8E5D3A00@phx.gbl> <C8FF74A20D9540AAAF95A521083B3B12@df2py> <fc7eccec0911210552o68c9421bwe45458509956a059@mail.gmail.com> <004601ca6ab3$a160b400$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <004501ca6ab4$9a81dd20$0517aac0@desktop> <fc7eccec0911210635x1ac7dd21r735de4e26d7cd7b7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:57:57 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Example
Go to bed and leave the machines, wake up in the morning and count how many
QSO'S they made,
Who has the highest score to  date ?
Even better leave them for a week or so !! and go for the big numbers and
with a confused data base you might get a PIRATE

g3kev

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO


and define unattended ...

Andy
www.g4jnt.com

This email has been scanned for damaging side-effects by the health
and safety police



2009/11/21 James Cowburn <james.cowburn@virgin.net>:
> How do you know they are unattended?
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of mal hamilton
> Sent: 21 November 2009 14:05
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
>
> Two unattended machines had a QSO!! Is that what you mean.
> g3kev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 1:52 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
>
>
> CanI suggest you read thoroughly the documentation on how the mode
> works before making claims about the database.and validity. The
> database can only be updated by stations decoding and reportoing, and
> if each QSO partner has a reciprocal report in the database for
> near-adjacent time intervals , then they MUST have been in contact
> with eachother and cannot be classed as anything bu a valid QSO. Its
> impossible to have achieved this in any other way.
>
> Please read all the documentation first.
>
> Andy
> www.g4jnt.com
>
> This email has been scanned for damaging side-effects by the health
> and safety police
>
>
>
> 2009/11/21 Wolf Ostwald <df2py@t-online.de>:
>> Hello group !
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not an expert with WSPR at all. But I followed the discussion
> regarding
>> false detection of calls thru the database.
>>
>> To my understanding the WSPR operator has NO way to really find out
> whether
>> the computer came to the right conclusion about the calls received, or
>> whether it just judged by means of plausibility. We humans have no sense
> for
>> phaseshift, that means we have to believe the machine.
>>
>> I think that the database in the background is like a walking stick for
> the
>> blind.
>>
>> Of course it's a new and exciting technology, but I doubt that it is on
> one
>> and the same level with a regular exchange and therefore should not be
>> considered equally verifying a valid contact.
>>
>> My two pence worth de wolf df2py
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>