|Subject:||Re: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real?|
|From:||Andy Talbot <[email protected]>|
|Date:||Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:22 +0100|
|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==|
|References:||<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]en.be>|
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
On 21 May 2015 at 07:47, Rik Strobbe <[email protected]> wrote:
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|