Date
1 - 3 of 3
Locked Chance of a wrong decode looking plausible?
Bill Ahillen
I get false decodes a couple times a day. I also monitor 160 m and 80 m over night. I have 3 instances running 24/7.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
As you said the the format usually is similar and no match with QRZ.COM. I use JTAlert and often show up as a New DXCC. Most of the time the DB is -24. The call sign looks strange in the number and form. I have not seen a decode on the freq before or after by any station. It always only happens one time and no subsequent bad decodes. I set ENABLE AP and deep decode. Bill W9JJB On Apr 3, 2020, at 6:28 AM, David Gould <dave@...> wrote: |
|
Reino Talarmo
What are the chances of a wrong decode resulting in a plausible looking callsign? The other night I left my system just monitoring on 80m overnight. I got the following single decodes 4F0AEH Philippines 23.49 -15 T29UJV Tuvalu 01.30 -20 Neither of the calls exist on qrz.com and propagation to Tuvalu would seem unlikely. Is there any way to determine what the proper decode might have been? 73, Dave G3UEGHi Dave, The nature of the source coding results almost in all cases a plausible looking callsign, when there a false positive decoding. There is no possibility to determine what the proper callsign have been as most probably decode is a result of random symbols due to noise and possible other messages on that frequency. 73, Reino OH3mA |
|
David Gould
What are the chances of a wrong decode resulting in a plausible looking callsign?
The other night I left my system just monitoring on 80m overnight. I got the following single decodes 4F0AEH Philippines 23.49 -15 T29UJV Tuvalu 01.30 -20 Neither of the calls exist on qrz.com and propagation to Tuvalu would seem unlikely. Is there any way to determine what the proper decode might have been? 73, Dave G3UEG |
|