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 <[email protected]>:
> How do you know they are unattended?
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mal hamilton
> Sent: 21 November 2009 14:05
> To: [email protected]
> 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" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|
