[Lowfer] OP65 late start for tonight-73 dial as usual...

[Garry Hess]

I define sensitivity very simply: when mode A reliably detects the 
message and mode B doesn't, mode A is more sensitive.

Every detection method has a falsing risk, including your WI example. 
It's a personal matter how low that risk must be before you're 
comfortable claiming the detection was real. For the physicists claiming 
discovery of the Higgs boson, the comfort level was 5-sigma 
(http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5248358123737529836). 
That's about 3.3 million to 1 odds they were right. Not quite the odds 
of a single MegaMillions lottery winner, but not shabby. I don't know 
the falsing probability of opera, let alone the deep-search version, but 
I've used them enough to know they are very low. In the real world, 
where things aren't necessarily Gaussian, I've never seen a false with 
opera and I've seen just one with deep-search. It was trivial to 
identify, as are the WSPR falses that stand out like sore thumbs on the 
world map.

Your closing comment indicates you're still hung up with computer modes 
infringing upon the purity of signal detection. NASA isn't, and neither 
am I.

-- 
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL