> n4gi@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
>
> What if the spotted stations couldn't handle the pileups
> efficiently, and their
> rate actually DECREASED after each spot (yes, that's right.
> cluster spots =
> more LIDS).
>
> Then.....(as Shaggy and Scooby pull the mask off of the crook)
> I hypothesize that the multiple spots were made by ENEMIES of the stations
> being spotted in order to sabotage their scores.....
>
>
> de k3ft... Now THERE'S a ponderment, indeed! Seriously, does
> anyone think that this
> tactic REALLY has any value? As my job requires me to think of
> things which may be used
> to screw up the works so I can plan 'countermeasures' for the
> 'what if' scenario, I
> find myself seriously wondering if that tactice would, indeed,
> have such an effect as
> N4GI (tongue in cheek) references?
>
> My intial thought is to say NO, because a highly prized (rare)
> station is going to be
> pounced upon anyway and have a hellish pileup BUT such a tactic
> WOULD serve to overload
> the calling side by raising the QRM level by several orders of
> magnitude. Call it
> 'PUDOS' PileUp Denial Of Service attack.
Then there's KAOS (KG5U's Access of Service attack):
I, in my contest QRPness, come on a big pileup. hmmm...can't break it...I
log on to the local cluster with a bogus call, spot a much rarer station,
say a YI 20 or 30 kHz up the band, and log off. I re-log on as another
bogus caller, spot the YI yet again, log off. One or two more times, and
suddenly the pileup I'm wanting to break has broken itself and I step in to
make the Q and/or mult with the pilee (who is still wondering what happened
to his pileup) and move on to the next QSO.
73,
dale, kg5u
|