Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_40_50,HTML_BACKHAIR_8,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20 autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t4L89Yg3031422 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:09:34 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1YvLTr-0003ky-AU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:27 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1YvLTq-0003kp-Ia for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:26 +0100 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1YvLTo-0007kz-5L for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:25 +0100 Received: by wicmc15 with SMTP id mc15so4829595wic.1 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 01:05:23 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9NUlNetyj8VwfgaCT2WcmQFRdR34ojW+VjtQjAqTl1M=; b=pXC1D5ZyIwqhcaCZu44mHXGEn71ldzRBrMsgWc3rZxejhzi+NWChwJauA+2VranUzS fTFQAKt5AKyDGI5Zpu7RRxhR++C3vTXVpVa7VJk4o6G4NxGokDFzuEEweQPAEYAJzHGx IfMU6MU5XYRcMm5v+4OPsAV2eIKiJ+bxnqUhXSVLPPjM5Yb51E9UL35x8H3JBokDC9iR Nya6SQ4A/JAGk91OoSLeTtN5AsJHE4/rx7BokyOoV8qjmBneiStHbnlNEBzaUFpdpEDn XAAPnbX5K0+5cc9bTwqqatmUWKPHA7fLorrRzSJd8E45nEyAM+dYN0vrxLHINLXWFib/ c1uw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.216.196 with SMTP id os4mr2966143wjc.117.1432195522800; Thu, 21 May 2015 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.136.132 with HTTP; Thu, 21 May 2015 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A23548558@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <555CCC21.4060901@gmx.com> <555CE435.7050502@freenet.de> <55B8DA6A-5317-410B-8F43-A4EC035F14A2@gmx.com> <555CF143.9090403@freenet.de> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A23548558@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: Andy Talbot To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Scan-Signature: e6ca507e494efc41e4b71d154e5805b0 Subject: Re: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2902a62b26c05169301d9 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3196 --001a11c2902a62b26c05169301d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I disagree that the copying of callsigns is important if they are known in advance. Such would be the case in real organised Dx attempts and scheds It is just a waste of valuable QSO time / bandwidth to exchange already-known information. Why not regard the exchange of some unknown token as validating a genuine QSO? Like a digit or two, or a single letter. it could be a signal report, although a classic type of report does itself include a lot of known information in its structure and may not be robust enough All a-priori information can quite happily be exchanged by any other route Just because an IARU Handbook specifies something doesn't make it common sense - those rules / guidance or whatever were written by people who assume voice and the hand sent pulsed stuff is what everyone uses. Use for Contest rules, fair enough. But real experimenters use their common sense HOWEVER, I don't see the various deep search solutions in Opera including any unknowns in this sense. The time stamp is meant to act as that item of unknown,information, but is not being actually transmitted. Instead it has be correlated by external means, which isn't quite the same in terms of strength of coding Discuss Andy G4JNT Andy G4JNT On 21 May 2015 at 07:47, Rik Strobbe wrote: > Hello Wolf, > > > > well said. > > From the IARU R1 VHF managers handbook: > > > > *A valid contact is one where both operators have copied both callsigns, > the report and an unambiguous confirmation. However no recourse should be > made during the contact to obtain the required information, change of > frequency, antenna direction, etc. via other methods such as the > Internet, DX Cluster, talk-back on another band, telephone etc.* > > > > Similar statements are found in other documents such as contest and award > rules. > > > > 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > > > ------------------------------ > *Van:* owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_ > lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens wolf_dl4yhf [dl4yhf@freenet.de] > *Verzonden:* woensdag 20 mei 2015 22:40 > *Aan:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Onderwerp:* Re: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real? > > Hi Jochen, > > I think the discussion about Opera's own 'deep search' mode (or whatever > the proper name is) was done here (or on "the other" reflector) over a > year ago, and the main problem I see is that the 'real time web-based > exchange' of currently active stations means fooling oneself. > Consider this: You know there are only four possible callsigns which > have been transmitting, so in reality the software only has to decide > for a TWO BIT number. Much easier than "really" decoding the entire > number of message bits in an Opera message. > > In my very personal point of view, this 'real time web exchange of > stations (calls) which are currently transmitting' should not be used at > all. > For comparison, Markus' (DF6NM's) own deep search uses a quite large > table which is *static*, which means that his decoder has no chance to > play unfair (because it doesn't know who's currently active or not), and > it also doesn't know what others receive (over the internet). What I > don't know is how many stations are currently in that list, and thus how > many bits the algorithm effectively has to "decode" (well, it doesn't > really decode, it also makes a best guess from a limited number of list > entries to chose from). > > All the additional data which look as if they were "decoded" (eg "VK3ELV > ... 140w + Top loaded L 18m vert 80m horz") have been taken from a > database (***including the callsign***), not radio .. the only real > information is the '- 37 dB' report, and the two question marks which > imho may as well have been ten or twenty (considering the season and the > distance). > > Well just my two pence of wisdom. I don't use Opera and don't think I > ever will. > > Cheers, > Wolf . > > > > > > > > > > > Am 20.05.2015 22:03, schrieb J. Althoff: > > Hi Wolf, > > > > You are not disappointing me at all. I put this issue under discussion > myself. > > > > Please share your opinion about this to this topic to us in > detail. Maybe I missed > > A discussion about this before, but I am very interested in arguments > about this > > Topic. > > > > Thanks, Jochen > > > > > > -= DF1VB =- > > -= KH2MM =- > > Jochen Althoff > > df1vb@gmx.de > > +491712020206 > > > > > >> Am 20.05.2015 um 21:44 schrieb wolf_dl4yhf : > >> > >> Sorry to dissapoint you but .. no, no, no, and again, no. > >> > >> 73, > >> Wolf > >> > >> Am 20.05.2015 20:02, schrieb Jochen Althoff: > >>> Just popped up at my RX: > >>> > >>> 17:52 477 VK3ELV de DF1VB/3 Op8 Deep Search ?? 16348 km -37 dB > in Dortmund with 140w + Top loaded L 18m vert 80m horz > >>> > >>> Any comments welcome > >>> > >>> 73, Jochen > >> > > > > > > > --001a11c2902a62b26c05169301d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I disagree that the copying of callsigns is important= if they are known in advance.=C2=A0 Such would be the case in real organis= ed Dx attempts and scheds
It is just a waste of valuable QSO time= / bandwidth to exchange already-known information.=C2=A0=C2=A0
<= br>
Why not regard the exchange of=C2=A0some unknown token as val= idating a genuine QSO?
Like a digit=C2=A0 or two,=C2=A0 or a sin= gle letter.
it=C2=A0could be a signal report, although a classic = type of report does itself include a lot of known information in its struct= ure and may not be robust enough

All a-priori info= rmation can quite happily be exchanged by any other route
Just be= cause an IARU Handbook specifies something doesn't make it common sense= - those rules / guidance or whatever =C2=A0were written by people who assu= me voice and the hand sent pulsed stuff is what everyone uses.=C2=A0=C2=A0 = Use for Contest rules, fair enough.=C2=A0 But real experimenters use their = common sense

HOWEVER,=C2=A0=C2=A0 I don't see = the various deep search solutions in Opera including any unknowns in this s= ense.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The time stamp is meant to act as that item of unkn= own,information, =C2=A0but is=C2=A0not being actually transmitted.=C2=A0=C2= =A0Instead it has=C2=A0 be correlated by external means, which=C2=A0isn'= ;t quite the same in terms of strength of coding

D= iscuss

Andy=C2=A0 G4JNT

A= ndy=C2=A0 G4JNT


On 21 May 2015 at 07:47, Rik Strobbe <R= ik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:

Hello=C2=A0Wolf,

=C2=A0

well=C2=A0said.

From=C2=A0the=C2=A0IARU=C2=A0R1 VHF m= anagers handbook:

=C2=A0

A=C2=A0valid contact is=C2=A0one=C2=A0where=C2=A0both operators have=C2=A0copied=C2= =A0both callsigns, the report and=C2=A0an=C2=A0unambiguous confirmation.= =C2=A0However=C2=A0no=C2=A0recourse<= a>=C2=A0should=C2=A0be made=C2=A0during the contact to=C2=A0obtain the=C2=A0require= d information,=C2=A0change of frequency, antenn= a direction, etc. via=C2=A0other=C2=A0methods=C2=A0such as the Internet,=C2=A0DX Cluster,=C2=A0talk-back=C2=A0on<= a>=C2=A0another band,=C2=A0telephone etc.=

=C2=A0

Similar=C2=A0statements are=C2=A0found in=C2=A0other=C2=A0documents=C2=A0such as=C2=A0contest and=C2=A0aw= ard rules.

=C2=A0

73,=C2=A0Rik=C2=A0=C2=A0ON7YD - OR7T<= /p>

=C2=A0

Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]=C2=A0namens=C2=A0wolf_dl4= yhf [dl4yhf@freenet.de<= /a>]
Verzonden:=C2=A0woensdag 20=C2=A0mei 201= 5 22:40
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: Re: LF:=C2=A0MF 630m:=C2=A0False=C2=A0Decode=C2=A0or Real?

Hi Jochen,

I=C2=A0think the=C2=A0discussion=C2=A0about Opera'= s=C2=A0own 'deep search' mode (or=C2=A0whateve= r
the proper name is) was=C2=A0done=C2=A0here (or=C2=A0o= n "the other" reflector) over a=C2=A0
year ago, and the=C2=A0main=C2=A0problem I=C2= =A0see is=C2=A0that the 'real time=C2=A0web-based<= a>
exchange' of=C2=A0currently=C2=A0active stations=C2=A0mea= ns=C2=A0fooling oneself.
Consider=C2=A0this:=C2=A0You=C2=A0know=C2=A0the= re are=C2=A0only=C2=A0four=C2=A0possible=C2=A0c= allsigns=C2=A0which
have been transmitting,=C2=A0so in=C2=A0reality the so= ftware=C2=A0only has to=C2=A0decide=C2=A0
for a=C2=A0TWO BIT number.=C2=A0Much=C2=A0easie= r=C2=A0than "really"=C2=A0decoding th= e=C2=A0entire=C2=A0
number of message bits in=C2=A0an Opera message.

In=C2=A0my=C2=A0very=C2=A0personal point of view,=C2= =A0this 'real time web exchange of
stations (calls)=C2=A0which are=C2=A0currently transmi= tting'=C2=A0should=C2=A0not=C2=A0be=C2=A0us= ed at
all.
For comparison, Markus' (DF6NM's)=C2=A0own<= /a>=C2=A0deep search=C2=A0uses a=C2=A0quite=C2=A0large= =C2=A0
table=C2=A0which is *static*,=C2=A0which=C2=A0means= =C2=A0that=C2=A0his decoder has=C2=A0no=C2=A0chanc= e to=C2=A0
play unfair (because=C2=A0it=C2=A0doesn't= =C2=A0know=C2=A0who's=C2=A0currently=C2=A0active=C2=A0or not), and=C2=A0
it=C2=A0also=C2=A0doesn't=C2=A0know=C2=A0wh= at=C2=A0others=C2=A0receive (over the internet).=C2=A0= What I=C2=A0
don't=C2=A0know is=C2=A0how=C2=A0many stati= ons are=C2=A0currently in=C2=A0that list, and=C2=A0thus=C2=A0how=C2=A0
many bits the=C2=A0algorithm=C2=A0effectively has to &= quot;decode" (well,=C2=A0it=C2=A0doesn't=C2=A0
really decode,=C2=A0it=C2=A0also=C2=A0makes<= /a> a best=C2=A0guess=C2=A0from a=C2=A0limited=C2=A0nu= mber of list=C2=A0
entries to=C2=A0chose from).

All the=C2=A0additional data=C2=A0which look as=C2=A0if=C2=A0they=C2=A0were "decoded" (eg &= quot;VK3ELV
...=C2=A0140w + Top=C2=A0loaded L=C2=A018m=C2=A0vert=C2=A080m horz") have been taken=C2=A0from a
database (***including the callsign***),=C2=A0not radio .. the=C2=A0only=C2=A0real=C2=A0
information=C2=A0 is the '- 37 dB' report, and the=C2=A0two<= a>=C2=A0question=C2=A0marks=C2=A0which=C2=A0
imho=C2=A0may as=C2=A0well have been ten=C2=A0o= r=C2=A0twenty (considering the=C2=A0season and = the
distance).

Well=C2=A0just=C2=A0my=C2=A0two=C2=A0pence of wisdom. I=C2=A0don't=C2=A0use Opera and=C2=A0don= 9;t=C2=A0think I
ever will.

Cheers,
=C2=A0=C2=A0 Wolf .










Am 20.05.2015 22:03,=C2=A0schrieb J. Althoff: >=C2=A0Hi Wolf,
>
>=C2=A0You are=C2=A0not=C2=A0disappointing me at al= l. I put=C2=A0this issue=C2=A0under=C2=A0discussion my= self.
>
>=C2=A0Please=C2=A0share=C2=A0your=C2=A0opinion<= /a>=C2=A0about=C2=A0this to=C2=A0this topic to=C2=A0us= in detail.=C2=A0Maybe I missed
> A=C2=A0discussion=C2=A0about=C2=A0this before<= /a>,=C2=A0but I=C2=A0am=C2=A0very=C2=A0interested in=C2=A0arguments=C2=A0about this
> Topic.
>
> Thanks, Jochen
>
>
>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 -=3D=C2=A0DF1VB =3D-
>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 -=3D=C2=A0KH2MM =3D-
>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Jochen Althoff
>=C2=A0=C2=A0 df1vb@g= mx.de
> +491712020206
>
>
>> Am 20.05.2015=C2=A0um 21:44=C2=A0schrieb=C2= =A0wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>:
>>
>> Sorry to=C2=A0dissapoint=C2=A0you=C2=A0but= .. no, no, no, and again, no.
>>
>> 73,
>>=C2=A0=C2=A0 Wolf
>>
>> Am 20.05.2015 20:02,=C2=A0schrieb=C2=A0Jochen= Althoff:
>>> Just=C2=A0popped up at=C2=A0my RX:
>>>
>>> 17:52=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 477=C2=A0VK3ELV de DF1VB= /3=C2=A0Op8=C2=A0Deep Search ?? 16348 km= -37 dB in=C2=A0Dortmund=C2=A0with=C2=A0140w + Top=C2=A0loaded L=C2=A018m=C2=A0vert= =C2=A080m horz
>>>
>>>=C2=A0Any=C2=A0comments welcome
>>>
>>> 73, Jochen
>>
>
>



--001a11c2902a62b26c05169301d9--