(Bill Powell) wrote in
:

Sounds like some real shoddy engineering took place at taxpayer
expense. I can think of 3 or 4 ways to remove false targets w/o
loosing any system level accuracy or sensitivity. In fact, didn't
they perfect that during the cold war?

If I was trying to do real-time analysis of such weak signals with the
goal of protecting the nation, I'd take advantage of every technical
and legal option available to me to limit or remove the potential for
interference from very strong local signal sources.

Do you also object to the "National Radio Quiet Zone" in West
Virginia?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:34:06 EDT, Bert Hyman wrote:

(Bill Powell) wrote in
:

Sounds like some real shoddy engineering took place at taxpayer
expense. I can think of 3 or 4 ways to remove false targets w/o
loosing any system level accuracy or sensitivity. In fact, didn't
they perfect that during the cold war?

If I was trying to do real-time analysis of such weak signals with the
goal of protecting the nation, I'd take advantage of every technical
and legal option available to me to limit or remove the potential for
interference from very strong local signal sources.
Technical for sure but it appears that even technology available to
the general public isn't in (effective) use.
A known and fixed "target" in ANY digital processing system is very
easily noted and then removed from the data stream.
Legal resources? Sounds like the typical "When all else fails, blame
the ham" excuse.

Do you also object to the "National Radio Quiet Zone" in West
Virginia?
Absolutely not! And, all a ham has to do there is to coordinate in
advance. They have MANY issues with RFI from non-ham sources to
contend with there.
Wonder if PAVEPAWS is going to start shutting down microwave ovens and
wireless dog fences next? :-)

Bp
PS - No complaints w/ the government entity but w/ the contractor(s).