Re: [digitalradio] Let me understand
On 10/18/07 12:01 pm Brian A wrote: The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. Icom makes at least one dual-band D-Star-capable HT. I think the model# is IC-91AD. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 Alan NV8A
[digitalradio] Let me understand
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 de Brian/K3KO
RE: [digitalradio] Let me understand
This is not proposed as the only means of providing disaster communications. It is another available tool. The HT in the hands of an OM in the field is another tool. Disaster communications has a lot of perspectives. One that I feel often gets short shrift is the health and welfare messages from people in the affected area. Providing some form of communication with the outside world is important psychologically for this folks. Since this takes place after the actual disaster occurrence it is feasible that more than the minimal equipment is available for use. Someone from outside the area may be able to bring in the equipment, for example. In addition, there is interest by disaster relief organizations for this capability. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian A Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:01 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Let me understand The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 de Brian/K3KO
Re: [digitalradio] Let me understand
Brian A wrote: The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 de Brian/K3KO EComm (and I DON'T like the word) exist on many levels and conditions and client needs. As a servicing agent, our client may have varying needs at different times and communications with different parties and over varying distances. One serviced organization may only need local voice communications. A talkie and mobile may work find or simplex between mobiles or a mobile and base may work. You might find another serviced organizatiion needing voice communications with stations/locations several hundreds of miles away...then HF SSB is a nice choice. Today many serviced organizations need data transferred to distant stations. As Dave Sumner said in the Oct QST, you might find an organization needing to transmit a complex spreadsheet, JPEG or binary file that is a special mapping applications. This calls for more than just a mobile/portable rig and antenna. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Let me understand
Sounds to me like you understand perfectly. 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Let me understand The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right? My perception of emergency situations is that just having a rig/antenna available and working may be no small task. Throw in the need for the a working computer, sound card and and software and you're adversely affecting your ability to respond? Seems like that to me. The more parts required, the less chance they will all work. The more power used as well. What about the guy in the field with an HT? Where does he fit in? Certainly you don't expect him to be digital. I must be missing something... My perception is that the most reliable and practical system must be a minimialistic one in terms of parts and complexity. 73 de Brian/K3KO
