Re: LF: WSPR TA spots on 630m

[John Langridge <kb5njd@gmail.com>]

Yeah you are correct Clemens.  My mistake.  I had seen a similar callsign in the data set and realized it after sending.  My apologies.  Yep, appears just a phantom.  I mention the band error because there has been a lot of that lately.  Phantoms are easier to explain away HI.

73!

John

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Clemens Paul <cpaul@gmx.net> wrote:

Hi John,

our emails have crossed.
False decode,yes.
Operator error,no.
VE7QZZ hasn't been TX'ing on any band in WSPR.
It appears that WSPR creates sometimes wrong callsigns
when decoding is critical.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of John Langridge
>Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 2:35 PM
>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>Subject: Re: LF: WSPR TA spots on 630m
>
>I believe the VE7 is a band selection error by DL4RAJ.  XXM is legit.
>
>73!
>
>
>John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Clemens Paul <cpaul@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>       Conditions seem to improve:
>
>       2016-02-15 19:04   VE7QZZ   0.475805   -32   1   QF89
>0.002   DL4RAJ   JN68kj   16396   314
>        2016-02-16 05:08   WG2XXM   0.475711   -25   0
>EM15lj   5   DL4RAJ   JN68kj   8406   40
>        2016-02-16 05:16   WG2XXM   0.475711   -29   0
>EM15lj   5   DL4RAJ   JN68kj   8406   40
>
>       These were the sole spots of both stations on this side
>of the pond.
>
>       73
>       Clemens
>       DL4RAJ
>
>
>
>
>
>