## 4 Results
### Simulation 2  
In the second simulation, it was decided to take a network of 200 nodes to increase the area and thus change the density to notice changes in the metrics and have other insights on the types of jamming and network schemes. For all the metrics, a sharp drop in their values was noted as the area of the network increased, approximately from 1000 m\({}^{2}\) which is when the network began to decrease in density to a great extent. Networks with a higher density of nodes have a more predictable behavior than networks with a low density, since the scheme preference to be used in the processing algorithm can sometimes change. PDR has been calculated in Figure 11, seeing a greater aggressiveness of the constant jamming. The good response of the collaborative network is notable for networks with low node density and subject to deceptive interference. This response occurs because deceptive jamming proposes false information through interrupts,  
Figure 10: Energy for types of jamming in a WSN of 500 m\({}^{2}\) with different number of nodes under collaborative and cooperative schemes. but they are not served because the node is configured to perform synchronous tasks, ignoring the deceptive targets that the jammer displays. However, when the network is in normal conditions, the cooperative scheme is more convenient, since there is no interference; waiting for the polling cycles generates a higher latency than the interruptions proposed by the cooperative scheme. In networks with high node density, jamming manifests itself with a rapid drop in RSSI, especially in deceptive jamming; however, when node density decreases, increasing the area of distribution of nodes, reactive jamming shows more aggressiveness. This is because of the fact that when the distances are greater between the nodes, there is room for greater interferences than in small areas, which are usually more controlled. Figure 12 shows that before jamming attacks, the RSSI will always decrease, but under normal conditions a curious phenomenon can occur, and it is the sudden increase in the RSSI in networks that are not very dense, especially for cooperative schemes. This makes sense considering that there should be fewer packet collisions as there is more space for transmission. Figure 11: PDR for types of jamming in a WSN of 200 nodes with different areas under collaborative and cooperative schemes. Regarding the energy consumption of the nodes, we know that the PDR has a strong impact on the consumption level, so that if the constant and random jamming caused a strong drop in the PDR of the network, it will also cause it in the energy, but more constantly, without resounding drops, as occurs in reactive jamming in networks with a higher density of nodes. It is observed in Figure 13 where jamming attacks the cooperative network, causing it to generate more retransmissions and CPU usage to find the way with the best LQI to send the packets through the best route in less time; all this translates into higher energy consumption. As in the RSSI, it is observed that after 5000 nodes, when the density of nodes decreases, the cooperative scheme has a considerable improvement over the collaborative one, so it is recommended to use the cooperative scheme in networks of low node density only when there is no interference. The energy consumption shows the damage caused by random jamming in terms of the effectiveness of the aggression per unit of time, especially in the cooperative scheme, since this type of jammer makes a combination of constant attack with reactive attack. Figure 12: RSSI for types of jamming in a WSN of 200 nodes with different areas under collaborative and cooperative schemes.