RE: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real?

[Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>]

Hi Andy,

 

OK about the known callsigns.

My focus was on the second part: "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."

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

---

Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Andy Talbot [andy.g4jnt@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 21 mei 2015 10:05
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: Re: LF: MF 630m: False Decode or Real?

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 <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> 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 <dl4yhf@freenet.de>:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>