Re: [IRCA] Cheaters-R-Us -- SIGINT lesson 102

["Bob Foxworth" <rfoxwor1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > ..........I can tell you first hand, that you'll 
> > make the job of Jim and the BTC more 
> > difficult by using the term on this list.  ....


> Let Jim tell you about the recent response/refusal to
> a DX test from a CE at a station (which shall remain
> un-named, of course) who considers DXers who log a
> station by copying Morse Code to be "cheaters".

Well, he hasn't, AFAIK. I suppose it Had to Happen. I
look forward to perhaps reading about this.  Jim ??

Probably a ham who has learned that contacting hams
at a great distance using CW is much easier (if you
know the code) than to copy his/her voice, all else being
equal. The 10 to 1 reduction in bandwidth for CW is part
of the answer.

I'd bet this is more common than you would imagine. It
is based on the premise that the station should be
received and logged in the mode in which it is intended
to operate. IOW, an AM double sideband modulated
station should be logged using AM detection (which
could be diode or synchronous, but it is logging the station
by detecting its voice sidebands audibly, and listening to
the spoken recovered output by ear, as any listener
would do).

I've posted on this several times. Logging a station
based on that premise, in order to "count it as an
AM station logging" is one thing. Hearing a CW ID in AM
mode (when the station transmits a CD of an audio code
ID or sweep tone) pushes the limit of what an AM station
is expected to do. I think many DXers are satisfied
with counting their loggings that way, i.e. hearing a
MCW ID. And, yes, I've done it.

A _true_ CW ID is done by pulsing the carrier on and
off and using the BFO. What we are doing is MCW,
pulsing a _tone_ on, and off with a constant carrier.

A further "reach" is when the DXer detects the sideband
__IN CW MODE__ (BFO on, 300 Hz bandpass filter,
tuned exactly to the sideband of the tone, optimally
3000 Hz or greater, to escape the normal AM sideband
hash). A lot of DXers probably would have trouble even
getting that to work. It is certainly way beyond the scope
of what an as-intended AM station signal reception
would be all about.

It's useful if you want to just get an indication of what
kind of propagation is happening. I guess some would
"count it" and some not. My own preference would be to
Not count it, but then I stopped "counting" stations, as being
sort of meaningless, in the 1970's. I like the GPN model
of pushing the limits technically, as distinct from just
"counting" as a "logging", so you can claim X and then X+1
"loggings".

Then there is the question of "counting" the (then) wobbling
KFI carrier using Spectran, a few years ago. No sane
person would "count" that as a "logging" partly because
the opportunity does not exist to be equally able to "count"
any other signal on the same frequency. That's because
none of the others have a distinct artifact (a voice ID
would be a distinct artifact) allowing it to be uniquely
identified. After all, the idea that the KFI carrier could then
be visually identified, ONLY because of its unique temporary
defect, is interesting in a technical sense because it
lets one determine how often that carrier might be present
at a distant location, all very useful information, but it is in
no way valid for a "logging" when none of the other signals
have an equally reasonable chance of being identified in
the same manner. Don't forget that the KFI situation then
depended on a transmitter defect, (wobbling oscillator) that
is not part of the intended manner in which the station
operates.

To prove this, listen to 640 from the east at 0700L in Dec.,
you might see 10 or over 10 distinct carrier lines, but, if you
have done no prior research (AM DXing by sound requires
none, to be successful) then you honestly now have no idea
which of those carrier lines is which station, and you can't
"log" _any_ of them. You can just infer identities based on such
things as a trace appearing or disappearing at the known
s/on or s/off time of a particular station, as UK DXers have
done with South American signals on 1470 etc. It's all
stuff I think is fascinating and has high value.

I suppose a true purist in this model would not even count
a signal heard at night, using its daytime facility, as it is
also not part of the way the station is intended to operate.

No easy answers.

Don't forget that GPN used SAH recovery and PFM
data as a pointer to possible future reception of seldom
heard signals, which would then be logged audibly in
the normal manner, and not as a way to "log" by SAH
reception alone.

- Bob





_______________________________________________
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