Danny and Andy, Those of us in more rural areas do have a lot more difficulty finding others with similar interests. I was interested in electronics by age 12, when I "stumbled" upon it when I saw Popular Electronics Magazine during a summer spent in Riviera Beach, FL. But I did not know any adults who I felt were approachable who were also radio amateurs. (I had moved from Staten Island, NY to rural Wisconsin when I was age 7). In fact, the first person was a co-worker of my mother at a nearby military base who was able to give me the Novice test in 1963 and by then I was almost 18. Then I joined CAP (primarily because I wanted to operate HF and had a difficult time with learning the code). One of the members was a younger ham than me, but that was due to his dad being a ham and then I took the written Technician class from his dad. In those days, in order to take the General Class, I would have had to travel to the Twin Cities FCC Examining Office, which would have been equivalent to me going to Paris today. It just was not possible to even consider due to the expense and back then they did allow for this kind of testing for the Novice, Technician, and the Conditional (General taken by mail with a proctoring ham).
After college, I was conscripted into the military (this was during the Vietnam War), and let my license expire when I was overseas on a remote tour at Wake Island. I never even talked to the other ham or two that were there as I figured I would never be involved in ham radio again. After service, I eventually worked in an electronics/AV repair shop and by the late 1970's got interested in radio, particularly VLF, and one thing lead to another and I got relicensed as a Novice and was able to get my code speed to return to my former 8 to 10 wpm within a few weeks. Within a few months I tested at the Twin Cities FCC Office and passed my General and got interested in digital things because one of the guys who I knew back in my college days was very active with the area's VHF RTTY regenerative repeater that greatly extended 2 meter RTTY. Most used Model 15 and 33 TTY's so it was still the old stuff. I bought a 15 and made a simple interface from the QST article of the time and then tried interfacing it to an HF rig. It was not very sophisticated for HF use so bought various interfaces over the years such as the Kantronics UTU, CP-1, using software with a Commodore C-64 computer. Mainly found Amtor to be the main digital mode that I preferred because I hated the many hits on RTTY and liked the idea of receiving exact text, even with the exact typos too:) Later I tried the terrible HAL P-38 board but was never able to get it to work properly with P-mode as they called Pactor I. I had sold all my other HF digital equipment to pay for this very expensive product and returned it to HAL, completely disatisfied after several attempts on their part to come up with the right software to make it work correctly. They never could. They only returned 80% of the price so you can imagine that HAL is not on my list of approved vendors ever since. Extremely unethical company with an inferior product that simply could not perform on all the advertised modes. That ended my HF digital for some time. Meanwhile packet radio had come on the scene and within a few weeks, the VHF RTTY repeater was shut down as all the users moved to the superior packet system with digipeating and all. A lot of work went in to developing nodes and higher speed links, but there was a type of personality of the people who were involved in this part of networking that did not appreciate others knowing anything about their system, nor did they want any "competition" from others. Eventually, that system was disbanded pretty much throughout our whole state with a few remnants remaining I have heard. It was not until sound card digital came along that I had a renewed interest in digital radio and I have found this part of ham radio to be probably the most fun with experimenting with new modes. I admit that most of them are not that much better than the earlier ones, but it shows that hams around the world are trying their hand to see if they can improve upon the technology. At least that is true for keyboard modes. Since my underlying interest in radio still harkens back to emergency response, I continue to hope that we can develop some practical digital modes that will be useful for this purpose. At this time I don't see this happening. In fact, it seems that the interest from hams is shrinking for this use as they move toward Winlink 2000 and away from amateur radio RF solutions. It is ironic that we had a complete RF solution at one time with Winlink, back in the 1990's. It is too bad this could not have continued by the owners, or at least shared the source code, but they have been rather adamant about wanting to see it die and not compete with Winlink 2000. While the system is still being used by the ARRL NTS/D system, it can never be improved or made useful for other modes without starting over from scratch. As moderator of the Winlink2000 yahoogroup, I am very supportive of the casual use of the system for remote users, and those who are working toward increased interoperability, e.g., JNOS2 and recent developments with Nick, N2QZ's Unix/Linux support. But longer term, such decentralized approaches, such as Rein's PSKmail, seems to me to be far better when you want to insure that parallel systems are available that do not depend upon one centralized system for an entire world wide system. Say one thing that would be interesting would be for the moderator to set up a questionnaire for the group to find out some idea of the interest in, and the actual use of, Linux OS. It does seem that as a group, radio amateurs tend to use Linux more than the average higher end computer user, and the digital hams may even use it more than average hams. As far as 15 meters vs the other bands, I just can not quite figure it out. It has a similar low noise level compared to 10 meters when it is closed down, but perhaps the capture area of the antennas give it an advantage? Of course when it is open, this will not work well. I still wish I could convince all the net members to put up some kind of NVIS 160 meter antenna but a number of them do not think they can put up an 80 meter dipole much less something for 160. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: >You got it made. At least you know other hams in the area. I know of one >other, and he isnt on hf, in my whole county. I knew more overseas than I >do here, and there were some pretty small ham populations over there, in >places. Three others that I did know here, have died over the past 22 >years. I have put a few new ones on the books, but only in the surrounding >counties. I grew up in a small town in Texas, where there were onlyi 2 >teenage hams, and when they graduated, and left, there were none. I had to >go over a 100 miles away to get someone to give me my Novice tests. > >Yes, thanks to these grups, we are able to talk, discuss and yell at each >other, but gain knowledge so much better than from books. > >Danny Douglas N7DC >ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA >SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all >DX 2-6 years each. >moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:12 PM >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Don't ignore proposals/local HF net successes > > > > >>Rick, >> >>I have had the same experience here too, especially regarding 6M and 10M >>bands. >>Out of the hundreds of Hams in the area, I know of only two who use HF >>digital modes. >>Thank goodness for lists like these. >> >>73, John - K8OCL >> >> >> >> >>>From: KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: [email protected] >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: [digitalradio] Don't ignore proposals/local HF net successes >>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:30:28 -0500 >>> >>>Bruce, >>> >>>The ARRL is not generally going to ask other groups for input. It would >>>really be a bit unethical if my organization bypasses me and goes to >>>another organization for input. The input clearly needs to come from the >>>membership. So the ARRL acted appropriately. >>> >>>What seems to be coming out of all this is that SMIRK did not act in >>>their members best interest and ignored the FCC proposal. You do this at >>>your own risk. So I would talk to them about this and how you can use >>>the organization to further your interests, just like the other groups >>> >>> >do. > > >>>Just so you know, I certainly would never support any wide band modes >>>beyond what we now have on 6 meters or 2 meters. And that includes SS >>>techniques which destroy the noise floor over too wide an area. However, >>>I would like to see 6 meters used a LOT more than it is. It is >>>frustrating to me that after all these years, with many, many, more hams >>>with Technician Class Licenses, and with all the new amazing rigs with 6 >>>and sometimes even 2 and 440 SSB added on, very few hams are working >>>these bands for "local" contacts. The equipment (the really pathetic >>>equipment) I had in 1964 to work 6 meters (and could never get it to >>>work) is a far cry from what we have now and yet you just do not find >>>many operators. I call every so often on 52.525 FM and 50.125 SSB with >>>almost no contacts. Sure, when the band opens up, you can then work many >>>stations. I know that there are very weak signal modes such as some rare >>>EME work and more common meteor shower work so you don't want to >>>jeopardize those areas. >>> >>>By the way, since I moved about 30-40 miles away from my former QTH >>>which was centrally located to our club's Wednesday night chat net, we >>>have tried many different HF frequencies to see what works the best for >>>voice. We initially started on 28.400 for the last year or two but the >>>reason for selecting 10 meter phone was so that the Tech + and Novices >>>could be part of the group. Guess what? At no time have we ever had any >>>of them come to the well publicized net. So recently we have been trying >>>other bands, and 80 tends to go long and you get too many distant >>>stations wanting to contact us, 40 and 20 are outside the NVIS range and >>>have a weaker ground wave. Unfortunately same for 6 meters:( We thought >>>that might work OK for direct/skywave, but very mediocre results with >>>our mediocre antennas. >>> >>>The bands that really work the best are: >>> >>>160 if the other stations are willing to install an antenna ... and ... >>>15 meters was the best "ground"/direct wave of all the bands we tried. >>>Even with Butternut and R7 type verticals. I still can not quite figure >>>out the reason. >>> >>>I sure wish I could get some of the stations to try digital, especially >>>on 6 meters and 160 meters, but it seems nearly impossible out of 150 + >>>hams in the greater area, we have very few that will even try digital >>>modes at all:( >>> >>>73, >>> >>>Rick, KV9U >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>bruce mallon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>They were not asked .... THAT'S THE POINT ..... also >>>>how many members of this commity are long time 6 meter >>>>users? How many are active on 6 meters? >>>>If newer modes like digital are to catch on you cannot >>>>call others " LEGACY " modes and work around them to >>>>seze frequencys and thats EXACTLY what was done here >>>>....... it is not in your best intrest. >>>> >>>>--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Perhaps the lesson might be that unless we come to >>>>>the meeting and speak > up, our voices will not be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>heard. Actually, special > interest groups such >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>as SMIRK, SWOT, etc., should position themselves as >>>>>advocates for their > members point of view. I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>assume that they did this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org >> >>Other areas of interest: >> >>The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >>DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy >> >> >discussion) > > >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date: >> >> >10/23/2006 > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
