Re: Busy Frequency Check?
- --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <kd4e@v...> wrote:
>I generally watch for lid-like operating behavior with programs like
> > wb8wka wrote:
> > In the U.S., yes
> > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/03/100/
> Thanks for this!
> I have forwarded this to interested Hams with a
> recommendation that they systematically document
> the offenses and assured them that Riley will
> see to it that his warning is heeded or else serious
> consequences come to those who ignore him.
> Help Riley help Ham radio ... again.
MixW or DigiPan that have a waterfall display.
The waterfall's time-line shows the original QSO - and the offending
station coming in on top of that QSO graphically.
By using ( Alt - Print_Screen ) which puts the current window into
the clipboard ( Windows ) I can catch bad guys at it, and paste the
image into a graphic program, where I crop out the unecessary part,
leaving the waterfall display and the program's status line at the
bottom, which displays the time, mode, etc..
By doing this, I documented dozens of cases of interference
perpetrated by PACTOR bots on 20 and 30 meters. - In fact, I stopped
recording the incidents after a while as there was no sport to it...
I could tune in on those bands at any time there was activity and
find a PACTOR bot crashing somebody's QSO after a very short wait.
Way too easy!
Here is a typical incident: http://www.uspacket.org/pqrm.htm
I would give a ratio of PACTOR related interference in comparasin to
interference from other modes/protocols - but during the course of
all this monitoring and recording, I did not see anybody's QSO being
crashed by Packet, PSK31, MFSK or MT-63. Lots of PACTOR 'activity' to
record, but not much of anything else. Obviously interference from
these other modes does exist - but it is just as obvious that
interference from PACTOR stations happens much, much more often than
with the rest of these modes put together.