[aprssig] Re: PHG in APRS and Xastir?

[VE7GDH]

Bob WB4APR wrote...

> Thats similar to suggesting that we just list LAT
> LONGS for position and not put them on the map
> either. ...  Seeing a circle that covers 1000 times
> more area is more suggesting of a difference in
> performance than listing one station as 50W at
> 300' and the other at 5W and 10'.

To me, the circle is the problem. With fudged figures, it's close to 
meaningless. My suggestion would be to enter the actual figures for PHG and 
not fudge them to try and make a "PHG circle" represent coverage. Keep PHG, 
but don't represent it as a circle on a map.

<snip>

> We want APRS to be able to nail the neighborhood of
> a jammer in seconds.

Be sure to let us know when it's done!

> If people will just listen and enter their signal strength.

Knowing signal strength at a particular location could be a useful tool, but 
it takes human intervention. Still, every bit of information you gather can 
help. I just don't see a jammer being tracked down in seconds based on PHG 
(fudged or not) and (probably) a handful of APRS stations beaconing the 
signal strength of a particular signal. If the signal wasn't on 144.390, 
there would probably be even less APRS users helping to track it down. I 
would view APRS as just one tool in helping to track it down. I wouldn't 
want it to be my only tool if I wanted to track it down in a hurry. I know 
Doppler has been brought up a time or two and a few people shot it down, but 
I would put much weight on information gathered from one or several mobile 
Doppler stations. I wouldn't discount reports received via APRS. I just 
don't think you can reply on APRS as the only means of tracking a signal 
down.

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!"