----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:17
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
All other Modes (including several Weak Signal
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC
during the SET.
Doc:
You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis
that you missed the point....
Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation
path directly between the two EOC's during the test. Plus the path is
difficult at best of times due to intervening mountain ranges. They had
hoped HF Sideband and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the propagation
gods were against them...
Winlink was not planned to be included in the
SET. Winlink was tried as a total afterthought (because like you the EOC
managers were very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its
installation) when all other modes failed..... I have been lead to
believe that the EOC Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to
prove that Winlink would also be useless in the SET Scenario.
Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a node
over a thousand miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY relay the
messages to the Imperial County EOC.
As I was out in the field at the time, and do not
have first hand knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was
connecting through a different Winlink Node.
Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that
Winlink was the only mode that worked when all else failed...as they had
expected Winlink to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a
number of them into Winlink converts.
Doc:
I loved your theoretical analysis of the
situation..
but the Bottom Line Real World results in the
Simulated Emergency Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate
the effects of a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly
could...
... showed that Winlink Worked...
__________________________________________________________
Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Website:
www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes
UnpuAmanished"
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:14
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
> The point I am making is that us hams have a
lot
> of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this
>
irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one
> of our tools makes no
sense...
I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink
being
"discarded". That is a red herring.
The points I made,
and they were intentionally
precise, were:
1. Were any other
weak-signal digital modes tested?
Winlink is one of many, and one of the
most complex.
Why test only the most expensive and the most
complex
rather than several different digital modes?
2. In
proper emergency communications planning one
*always* seeks the most
commonly available, least
complex, and most effective mode(s) for
communication.
There is no evidence that such was done re.
digital
modes in this case.
3. Winlink was not listed as to
be "discarded", only
as not the wise choice as a top-tier tool.
Nothing
presented in your reaction/reply has in the slightest
way
factually argued against that assertion.
There are standards and
science which are supposed
to guide professional and wise decision making
for
emergency communications.
The assertion that Winlink is (or
was) the only and
best mode simply fails to meet the standard.
That
Winlink was the *only* weak-signal digital mode tested
makes an
entirely different statement having nothing
to do superiority and
something else to do with
skewing the playing field.
How about
inviting operators of several different
digital modes to the test.
Then using real-world
probabilities postulate equipment failure. It
is
impossible to not find a higher probability that
necessary pairs of
rare Winlink stations at both
critical ends will either not be in place
or suffer
some sort of failure then one of the more common
(due
primarily to cost) and more reliable (due
primarily to simplicity)
digital modes will really
be there when things really get
ugly.
Let me illustrate.
If one does a test that says that one
must complete
a relay of a package across difficult terrain and
the
vehicles chosen are two each Chevy S10's (SSB Voice),
Honda Accords (CW),
SUVs (complete VHF/UHF FM Repeater
Link system), and Hummer
H2s.
Those vehicles would need to be in precise positions
(the
equivalent of EOC's) prior to the suddenly declared
relay. They
would have to be fully fueled, manned by
competent drivers, and absent
mechanical problems.
One would face a series of serious
challenges.
Winlink, like the Hummer H2, is rare and the
probability
that sufficient hardware/software combinations at
both
ends (and "both ends" is an unpredictable because EOC's
may be
breached by an earthquake or terrorist attack)
when needed with antennas
and power and everything
required is highly improbable in a properly
designed
scenario.
Furthermore, due to the complexity of Winlink
the
probability of failure in one or both of the rare
pairs required
is also high.
Just as they postulated that your vhf/uhf
repeater
would fail so they would equally have to postulate
the
failure of one specific Winlink pair being in
perfect position operating
perfectly undisturbed by
the same or some other variable.
If one
postulates that the very common (Read: redundancy)
S10s, Accords, and
SUV's all failed and that two rare Hummers
were in the right place at the
right time with all variables
intact and suffered no failures (in spite
of the complexity
and in spite of no redundancy due to cost) one has
postulated
an absurdity.
Consider the many other far more common
digital modes
and one sees clearly the fallacy of the
Winlink/Hummer
postulate. In emergency/mission-critical
planning
redundancy is king.
These are simple and indisputable
facts that no
emergency management professional may ignore unless
he
wants to end up like the former FEMA Director.
IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc
kd4e
