I for one would insist on complete situational awareness at all times.
The alternative is being LOST. That can be bad for one's health.
The last time I was willingly lost was when Betty and I were returning
from the Palace Real in Madrid and we decided to just start walking
to the east. Then
Le 8 oct. 2013 à 10:29, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX a écrit :
I for one would insist on complete situational awareness at all times.
The alternative is being LOST. That can be bad for one's health.
That is not the same as not wanting to be FOUND.
___
And some of them have considerably higher EIRP, Like THIS one, As you
can see they are not sophisticated devices they are intended to swamp the
real GPS signal,
Spoofers would be much harder to detect which is why GNSS systems intended
for military use rely on encrypted signals and fairly
Hi
But there's obviously something wrong with the 400 KM number.
1) If +10 dbm is good enough to burry a useful signal at that distance, it
should be good enough to communicate at that distance. That's pretty impressive
QRP without high gain / directional antennas involved.
2) The radios (at
On 10/8/13 4:17 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
But there's obviously something wrong with the 400 KM number.
1) If +10 dbm is good enough to burry a useful signal at that distance, it
should be good enough to communicate at that distance. That's pretty impressive
QRP without high gain / directional
It does no good to prohibit clients from using GPS on land because unless
you keep them blindfolded the entire time they will see and photograph
their surroundings. People with some training can find location to within
about 25 feet with no GPS even in a flat dessert. I've hiked out to find
a
On 10/07/2013 01:36 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
Anything that will receive up there should be able to tell you when a jammer
comes by. The issue is that not a lot of gear is made for that band (other
than GPS receivers). The easy approach would be to use a modern GPS module
that puts out noise
Hi
Well finding a +10 dbm 1.5 GHz transmitter isn't very hard to do at all. I've
got several of those….
Bob
On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 10/8/13 4:17 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
But there's obviously something wrong with the 400 KM number.
1) If +10
Hi
Anything that will receive up there should be able to tell you when a jammer
comes by. The issue is that not a lot of gear is made for that band (other than
GPS receivers). The easy approach would be to use a modern GPS module that puts
out noise level / jamming information.
Bob
On Oct
Pro+ USB SDR at $200 and free software.
Alan
G3NYK
- Original Message -
From: Bob Camp li...@rtty.us
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] How hard is it to detect a GPS Jammer?
Hi
Many scanners now go to that frequency e.g AOR AR-8600. (100kHz to 2GHz )
They are hardly state-of-the-art receivers but should be capable of
detecting jammers driving past. However a new unit is quite pricey $1000
equivalent in the UK as little as $300 for a used version. Also the AMSAT
FCD Pro+
-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf
Of David J Taylor
Sent: October-07-13 10:21 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] How hard is it to detect a GPS Jammer?
Many scanners now go to that frequency e.g
From: Collins, Graham
[]
I wonder if the Fun Cube Dongle will be likewise changed (perhaps it already
has).
Cheers, Graham ve3gtc
=
Yes, Graham, it already has been updated:
http://www.funcubedongle.com/?page_id=1073
Adds more filtering and HF
On 10/7/13 7:46 AM, Collins, Graham wrote:
Indeed, the inexpensive DVB-T dongles are showing up in many places
including as David noted, decoding GPS.
The AMSAT Fun Cube Dongle is a very capable and interesting device.
Interestingly it uses the same Elonics E4000 front end chip that many
of
On 10/7/13 8:01 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
From: Collins, Graham
[]
I wonder if the Fun Cube Dongle will be likewise changed (perhaps it
already has).
Cheers, Graham ve3gtc
=
Yes, Graham, it already has been updated:
I think that when a GPS chip reports that there are no satellites found then
you got a jammer or a tunnel!
At 07-10-2013, you wrote:
Hi
Anything that will receive up there should be able to tell you when a jammer
comes by. The issue is that not a lot of gear is made for that band (other
than
Hi Hal:
Yes you can detect jammers driving by.
There was a prior case of unintentional GPS jamming around Moss Landing harbor, Monterey Bay, California caused by a
faulty (oscillating) active TV antenna on a boat that was powered 24/7.
Military GPS receivers, like the DAGR or PLGR-II,
On spacecraft hardware, even though something is a bit old, it does make
sense to use it.
Space qualifying a piece of hardware is very, very expensive, because it
requires a lot of shake and bake plus thermal vaccuum and other things.
Furthermore, there are always unknowns.
Do YOU really want
Taylor
Sent: October-07-13 10:21 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] How hard is it to detect a GPS Jammer?
Many scanners now go to that frequency e.g AOR AR-8600. (100kHz to 2GHz
) They are hardly state-of-the-art receivers but should be capable
Yes, there is equipment out there today that can be used: UBlox offers jamming
detection and level. We incorporated that into the later JLT products, and even
made a special board for a customer that displays the GPS spectrum in real time
showing the jammers in the frequency domain.
Bye,
Said
From: Jim Lux
Yes, Graham, it already has been updated:
http://www.funcubedongle.com/?page_id=1073
Adds more filtering and HF coverage, but also has a dead zone between
~240 and 420 MHz.
So much for receiving signals from Transit at 400 MHz (grin) or from
Mars (The rovers relay through
On 10/7/13 10:44 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
From: Jim Lux
Yes, Graham, it already has been updated:
http://www.funcubedongle.com/?page_id=1073
Adds more filtering and HF coverage, but also has a dead zone between
~240 and 420 MHz.
So much for receiving signals from Transit at 400 MHz
On 10/7/13 8:31 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
OK so let's say you have a receiver and detect a certain about of power at
the right frequency. How do you determine which of three cases you have
(1) an actual GPS signal from a satellite. (2) a spoofer (who tries hard to
look like #1) or (3) a
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Jim Lux wrote:
On 10/7/13 7:46 AM, Collins, Graham wrote:
The AMSAT Fun Cube Dongle is a very capable and interesting device.
Interestingly it uses the same Elonics E4000 front end chip that many
of the inexpensive DVB-T devices do. Apparently Elonics
Yes, these specific jammers do, but someone asked the general question how
to detect a jammer and a sophisticated jammer will use no more power than
is requires so as to avoid detection. Could it be that there are such
devices and they are successful at avoiding detection?Likely not as at
In general, we expect a jammer to be involved in criminal activity.
What about a wilderness guide whose reputation is built on finding
the best spots to view Nature's wonders. Should he or she be happy
to let people in the guided group save the coordinates of those
spots in order to compete with
On 10/7/13 9:30 PM, Bill Hawkins wrote:
In general, we expect a jammer to be involved in criminal activity.
What about a wilderness guide whose reputation is built on finding
the best spots to view Nature's wonders. Should he or she be happy
to let people in the guided group save the
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:30:57PM -0500, Bill Hawkins wrote:
In general, we expect a jammer to be involved in criminal activity.
What about a wilderness guide whose reputation is built on finding
the best spots to view Nature's wonders. Should he or she be happy
to let people in the guided
28 matches
Mail list logo
