Thanks Mike ,
We can add this one to the list of 'ifs' The times are
temptingly close , but genuine false detection occurred some time
later ...With the number of near misses' Down Under is becoming the
'MARS' of the beacon world !
Just a note - The '??' denotes either a rejected detection ,
timing parameters not met ... OR A single detection presented to
the server , with no secondary conformation.
I think this happened last night with the first detection of VO1NA
by PA3ABK , showing a dynamic detection ''??'' , then the next
cycle , cross correlated by F6CNI , validated
This is where using the Opera software , provides advantages , as the
TX beacon is stored in the psk-map and the call sign is added to
the dynamic list directly . allowing a manual inspection post result
From: "Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:04 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real?
Very likely a false decode. The clue is the two question marks. In my
experience, almost every decode with question marks is false, and
there are very few cases where these particular decodes are useful. I
believe it would be helpful not to display these at all.
Having said that, the deep search facility in Opera is very useful
and has revealed some very interesting propagation information. But
only using the decodes without the question marks which, again in my
experience, are almost always genuine.
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
-= DF1VB =-
-= KH2MM =-
+49 171 2020206
"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand.
The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat.
You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles.
The wireless is the same, only without the cat."
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4347/9830 - Release Date: