| Date/time (local) | Occurrence | Latitude | Longitude | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/26 00:17:24 | Detected | 43.0633 | -69.8163 | |
| 02/22/26 01:47:24 | Detected | 43.0597 | -69.8065 | |
| 02/22/26 02:02:24 | Detected | 43.0588 | -69.8040 | |
| 02/22/26 02:17:24 | Detected | 43.0579 | -69.8014 | |
| 02/22/26 02:32:24 | Detected | 43.0569 | -69.7988 | |
| 02/22/26 02:47:24 | Detected | 43.0560 | -69.7963 | |
| 02/22/26 03:17:24 | Detected | 43.0542 | -69.7911 | |
| 02/22/26 03:32:24 | Detected | 43.0532 | -69.7886 | |
| 02/22/26 04:17:24 | Detected | 43.0513 | -69.7833 | |
| 02/22/26 05:17:24 | Detected | 43.0505 | -69.7722 | |
| 02/22/26 05:32:24 | Detected | 43.0502 | -69.7695 | |
| 02/22/26 06:32:24 | Detected | 43.0507 | -69.7619 | |
| 02/22/26 06:47:24 | Detected | 43.0517 | -69.7597 | |
| 02/22/26 07:17:24 | Detected | 43.0539 | -69.7554 | |
| 02/22/26 07:32:24 | Detected | 43.0550 | -69.7532 | |
| 02/22/26 08:17:24 | Detected | 43.0579 | -69.7473 | |
| 02/22/26 08:47:24 | Detected | 43.0597 | -69.7447 | |
| 02/22/26 09:02:24 | Detected | 43.0610 | -69.7426 | |
| 02/22/26 09:17:24 | Detected | 43.0623 | -69.7405 | |
| 02/22/26 09:47:24 | Detected | 43.0650 | -69.7363 | |
| 02/22/26 10:32:24 | Detected | 43.0690 | -69.7300 | |
| 02/22/26 11:17:24 | Detected | 43.0699 | -69.7253 | |
| 02/22/26 12:17:24 | Detected | 43.0698 | -69.7194 | |
| 02/22/26 12:32:24 | Detected | 43.0697 | -69.7179 | |
| 02/22/26 13:11:02 | Detected | 43.0697 | -69.7164 | |
| 02/22/26 13:47:24 | Detected | 43.0672 | -69.7115 | |
| 02/22/26 14:17:24 | Detected | 43.0641 | -69.7069 | |
| 02/22/26 15:17:24 | Detected | 43.0578 | -69.6976 | NARW autodetection looks like noise but dataset does not have much noise in it? I'm not too sure here, could use another set of eyes from people who have seen NARW calls with harmonics. |
| 02/22/26 16:17:24 | Detected | 43.0497 | -69.6896 | Okay looking back on my previous comment there is more noise now in this set of PT's, so maybe the NARW autodetection from the previous PT is noise? however the noise/artifacts in this set do not look similar. |
| 02/22/26 16:32:24 | Detected | 43.0473 | -69.6868 | another set of eyes for noise on P3/P4. I'm getting a bit thrown off from the previous NARW autodetection |
| 02/22/26 17:17:24 | Detected | 43.0402 | -69.6787 | |
| 02/22/26 17:32:24 | Detected | 43.0379 | -69.6760 | |
| 02/22/26 18:17:24 | Detected | 43.0324 | -69.6714 | |
| 02/22/26 18:32:24 | Detected | 43.0305 | -69.6691 | |
| 02/22/26 19:17:24 | Detected | 43.0248 | -69.6622 | |
| 02/22/26 19:32:24 | Detected | 43.0229 | -69.6599 | |
| 02/22/26 19:47:24 | Detected | 43.0210 | -69.6575 | |
| 02/22/26 20:32:24 | Detected | 43.0207 | -69.6621 | Classified NARW on P8 is faint noise with artifact, fin with good IPI throughout |
| Date/time (local) | Latitude | Longitude | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/26 15:17:24 | 43.0578 | -69.6976 | NARW autodetection looks like noise but dataset does not have much noise in it? I'm not too sure here, could use another set of eyes from people who have seen NARW calls with harmonics. |
| 02/22/26 16:17:24 | 43.0497 | -69.6896 | Okay looking back on my previous comment there is more noise now in this set of PT's, so maybe the NARW autodetection from the previous PT is noise? however the noise/artifacts in this set do not look similar. |
| 02/22/26 16:32:24 | 43.0473 | -69.6868 | another set of eyes for noise on P3/P4. I'm getting a bit thrown off from the previous NARW autodetection |
| 02/22/26 20:32:24 | 43.0207 | -69.6621 | Classified NARW on P8 is faint noise with artifact, fin with good IPI throughout |
| 02/22/26 21:32:24 | 43.0230 | -69.6725 | Classified NARW on P15 is noise |