From: "James Cowburn" <james.cowburn@virgin.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>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:12:03 -0000
Message-ID: <004501ca6ab4$9a81dd20$0517aac0@desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <004601ca6ab3$a160b400$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
Thread-Index: Acpqs8knZsmKgX6HSoukgdkBILRk7AAAKiww
Subject: RE: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


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
>
>