Return-Path: Received: from rly-me01.mx.aol.com (rly-me01.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.34]) by air-me07.mail.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILINME073-9974b07f3d62e8; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:06:29 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me01.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME013-9974b07f3d62e8; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:06:16 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NBqaW-0005fN-8h for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:05:20 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NBqaV-0005fE-S2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:05:19 +0000 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NBqaV-0008KA-9z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:05:19 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAJeCB0tZ8EAi/2dsb2JhbADTd4Q8BIMZ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,264,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="112371245" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([89.240.64.34]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 21 Nov 2009 14:05:08 +0000 Message-ID: <004601ca6ab3$a160b400$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4B07ABA4.4060102@online.fr> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:05:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Two unattended machines had a QSO!! Is that what you mean. g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Talbot" To: 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 : > 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 > >