Re: [IRCA] Cuban jammer on 1550, very strong.

[Barry McLarnon <bdm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 24 March 2007 00:48, W. Curt Deegan wrote:
> For anyone who would like to hear the Whooper jammer up close, I've
> uploaded an MP3 file recorded earlier this evening, here:
> http://ScooterHound.com/WWWR/radio/1550_032307_194235.mp3

I was hearing the jammer fairly well here last night (thanks to your alert), 
once I'd gotten CBE beaten down a bit.  First time I've heard it... now I 
have to decide whether to add it to the log!  Which brings up a related 
topic...

I didn't get around to weighing in on the recent discussion of adding special 
test signals to stations when running DX tests to enable computer-aided 
detection of the signals.  I have no objection to such things, since I 
frequently use tools such as FFT spectrum analysis myself.  When it comes to 
logging stations, however, we all have to decide where to draw the line, and 
as far as I'm concerned, my log is a record of "stations heard".  By that I 
mean that I have to hear something in the audio from the station that 
establishes the ID, and that audio has to be something that was deliberately 
amplitude-modulated onto the signal.  Les recently brought up the example of 
KFI-640, which a few years back had a carrier frequency drift with a unique 
signature that could be easily spotted in a spectragram plot of 640 kHz 
carriers.  I was able to spot this signature, and still have a screen capture 
of the plot around here somewhere, so I definitely was able to receive KFI's 
carrier - but, I didn't add KFI to my log (and don't expect to, anytime 
soon!).  By the same token, I've "seen" the carriers of many distant and 
exotic stations and have been pretty certain of who they were (taking into 
account propagation conditions, plus the carrier frequency measurements 
documented by other DXers), but unless I can get some definitive audio to 
confirm the ID, they don't go in the log.

It's natural that we (some of us, anyway) like to compare our "totals" to 
measure our DXing exploits.  We already have the complication that some folks 
count call changes as "new" stations, and some don't (I'm in the latter 
camp).  In the future (if MW DXing has one, which is increasingly doubtful), 
I guess it may get more complicated, as computer-aided IDs become more 
commonplace.  In any case, there will be no point in claiming new loggings or 
stating your totals unless you also explain your criteria for "hearing" 
stations.

I think the jammer probably does qualify as a new one by my criteria, so I'll 
add it to the log.  MW logging #2113 (not including call changes, NDBs, 
wobblers, and the like, but does include TIS's, pirates, and now one jammer).

:-)

Barry

-- 
Barry McLarnon  VE3JF  Ottawa, ON
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx