[Elecraft] (Elecraft) CW in emergencies etc.
Dwight, I totally agree with your comments, enuff said about CW, let's get back to Elecraft discussions! :-) 73, Bob VE3XM K2 S/N 02676 K2/100 S/N 04031 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Many evenings, around 10:30 PM PDT, I sit in my bed getting caught up with my technical journals with my headphones on listening to folks QSO on 40 meters. I have a wire cut for 40 plus a counterpoise but the wires are across the bookshelves of my room making them not too effective as vertical radiators. I find listening to CW while reading very relaxing. If I am working through a derivation of some long bit of an equation my mind may not hear as much of the QSO but when I am done with the math the CW comes back to the fore part of my brain while I read on. Nice way to get ready to sleep. Thus, I think the answer to your surmise is yes, there are a lot of folks listening but not sending. There is a key beside the bed but I've yet to use it from that position. Maybe soon ;) Kevin. KD5ONS On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:53:35 -0400, Stephen W. Kercel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ralph says: There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does seem sparse. I'd wondered about that. I was completely inactive from July 1983 to November 2004, and I've noticed that the CW bands seem a lot less populated now than they did 20+ years ago. For example, last night as I tuned across the CW end of 40 m I heard maybe 6 QSOs. Admittedly, the geomagnetic activity has been high and propagation over the past week has been actively stinking. On the other hand, I wonder if the sparsity of transmissions is really from fewer hams operating, or simply from fewer hams transmitting. I expect that quite a few operators do what I do, listen without transmitting until something genuinely interesting pops up. My reason for suspecting this is that I repeatedly notice a remarkable phenomenon. The band will seem very quiet, maybe 2-3 QSOs in a 20 kHz segment, but then a rare (sometimes even not so rare) DX station appears, and a pileup develops literally within seconds, and becomes massive no later than the DX's second QSO. This happens too fast to be the effect of a spotting net or computerized spotting, I can only conclude that many operators are listening, ready to pounce when the moment is right. 73, Steve AA4AK -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/91 - Release Date: 9/6/2005 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Stephen W. Kercel wrote: Ralph says: There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does seem sparse. I'd wondered about that. I was completely inactive from July 1983 to November 2004, and I've noticed that the CW bands seem a lot less populated now than they did 20+ years ago. For example, last night as I tuned across the CW end of 40 m I heard maybe 6 QSOs. Admittedly, the geomagnetic activity has been high and propagation over the past week has been actively stinking. There is fewer phone activity too. I think its propagation related and not popularity. During the contests the band is filled with CW ops Ron wb1hga ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
[Elecraft] CW in Emergencies etc
Gentlemen: I am forced to sound off regarding all emails lamenting the prospect of CW not being required to pass the General and/or Extra Class exams; use of CW during emergencies and so. But beating a dead horse isn't going to accomplish much. So be innovative and come up with better systems of communications AND please take your gripes, sayings etc to some other site. It spoils the content of the Elecraft list which is good until everyone has to opine about CW etc. Too much time is wasted in looking for real Elecraft issues. 'Nuff Said' Dwight W4IJY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Ralph says: There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does seem sparse. I'd wondered about that. I was completely inactive from July 1983 to November 2004, and I've noticed that the CW bands seem a lot less populated now than they did 20+ years ago. For example, last night as I tuned across the CW end of 40 m I heard maybe 6 QSOs. Admittedly, the geomagnetic activity has been high and propagation over the past week has been actively stinking. On the other hand, I wonder if the sparsity of transmissions is really from fewer hams operating, or simply from fewer hams transmitting. I expect that quite a few operators do what I do, listen without transmitting until something genuinely interesting pops up. My reason for suspecting this is that I repeatedly notice a remarkable phenomenon. The band will seem very quiet, maybe 2-3 QSOs in a 20 kHz segment, but then a rare (sometimes even not so rare) DX station appears, and a pileup develops literally within seconds, and becomes massive no later than the DX's second QSO. This happens too fast to be the effect of a spotting net or computerized spotting, I can only conclude that many operators are listening, ready to pounce when the moment is right. 73, Steve AA4AK ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Dave Lowenstein wrote: The disadvantage of "no-code" is that if new hams aren't required to learn CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's? ... because "no-code" is a gateway drug ;-) -- "Nosey" Nick Waterman, Senior Sysadmin. #include [EMAIL PROTECTED] Memory serves wise commanders. -- Tz'u-hsi, 638 AD ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
[Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
reflection on Rons comments. I was OX5BT for 2 1/2 years. Mostly used CW due to the frequent arctic flutter making SSB unintelligible. I remember a CW qso that I was having on 20M, we were going along about 20 WPM when the flutter started. I slowed down, he slowed down, we finished the QSO at less than 10 WPM. The easily variable data rate of CW allowed us to adjust for conditions and complete a very pleasant QSO. I made WAS from Thule, I wanted it to be all CW but the CW ops in KH6 that I did work did not send me a QSL card. Thanks to the SSB QSO with a KH6 I got my 50th QSL card and obtained a mixed mode WAS . Thanks to Kevin, KD5ONS and the ECN for CW activity. I also get into the QPR sprints, http://www.arsqrp.com/ and http://www.arm-tek.net/~yoel/sprint200509.html and others. There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does seem sparse. 73, TY. W1TF K1 1432 (at present my only rig on the air) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-) Craig Until a cw op pops up in the middle... calls cq, gets and answer, has a chat, sez 73, then moves on, and someone on ssb says, what was that? The long haul cw nts ops are fading fast, the long haul cw need is fading until you look at the contest and the niche need. Yes, we need a long range, "big picture", type, that understands that trunked radio is only the next step, not the end, and the lost cw requirement can be phased out, along with the test. There are a whole truck load of other "filters" or valid test questions that can be, and should be put into the requirements for holding an amateur license. (Tongue firmly placed) One of which could be, which dielect is necessary to speak into a mic on 75 meters after 6 pm local time? Would it be more correct to add a bit of a drawl too? Humor, sometimes gets me past the sense of loss and it doesn't even have to be real good either. Seriously, if VHF phone works best in most emergencies, then use it. If the long haul ops are not used much in most, then by all means, let the traffic pass as effeciently as possible. If data doesn't work well, in emergency situations... and so far it doesn't, then find another proving ground for it, rather than try to force it to work anyway. Have we used all the feasible methods available to utilize the modes and means we have? Have we really tried it all? Are we waiting for someone else to do it first? Hey George? Are you there? Albert? Alexander? The Wright bros? Anyone listening yet? You folks were all doing it first... gee... someone has to... why not us? And Elecraft has done it first too... just look at the specs... try that with any other... But is Elecraft just sitting back and resting? I find that real tuff to believe! So... with all the examples of how and why what are you doing ? --... ...-- Dale WC7S qrp in WY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
In a message dated 9/6/05 12:35:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Yes Craig, and each and very one of those guys passed a code test! They also passed at least one, and usually several, written tests that specifically included the regulations. Yet they broke the rules anyway. Yes > > indeedy, that ole' Morse code sure does serve as a mighty fine filter to > keep the riff raff out. > Apply the same logic to the written test. Should the writtens be eliminated too, since they're not a perfect "riff-raff filter" either? And note this: What mode are those folks using on 75 meters? It sure isn't Morse Code? Tune down to the low ends of the bands and see if you can find the same behaviors from hams using Morse Code. Read the FCC enforcement letters (ARRL website is one source) and see what mode most of the alleged violators use. It's not Morse Code, and the disparity is not explained by the relative popularity of the modes. 73 de Jim, N2EY ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Stuart Rohre wrote: NTS techniques can be taught for phone just as well as CW. 72, Stuart K5KVH Red Cross Comms Officer, Katrina Relief It might be instructive for you to fill us in one how the Red Cross uses its HF frequenciesI assume it's SSB. 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/hosting/ *** Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Dave, Much emergency traffic can be handled with QRP phone rigs using NVIS antennas consisting of a low dipole for 40 and 80 plus a reflector wire about a foot off ground. It works like a 2 element beam and easily covers a couple of states. I have uses such a beam on 40m from Austin TX to Mobile AL, which is 3 states away. Granted that was with 100 watts, but I was 20 over 9 in TX North, South and East of me at the same time. Other Emergency traffic is FM VHF or UHF and local to one county in most cases. NTS techniques can be taught for phone just as well as CW. 72, Stuart K5KVH Red Cross Comms Officer, Katrina Relief ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Hi, Dave. This is an interesting idea, but it presupposes the new hams are taught traffic handling, ICS training, and other things that makes them able to pass emergency traffic with ANY rig. Maybe we should consider teaching Morse skills as a part of emergency communications. After all, as much as an anathema as it may be to us, not everyone wants to learn emergency operations, just as some do not want to learn CW. Rick WD8KEL Dave Lowenstein wrote: > The disadvantage of "no-code" is that if new hams aren't required to learn > CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our > low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's? Since emergencies are one of > our reasons for being and CW gets through with simple equipment where other > modes won't, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating the CW > requirement? > > Dave > N7AF ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:36:04 -0700, EricJ wrote: >The riff raff was deeply entrenched on 75 before VEC You can say that again -- 75 was a mess in the 50's! Jim K9YC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
The disadvantage of "no-code" is that if new hams aren't required to learn CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's? Since emergencies are one of our reasons for being and CW gets through with simple equipment where other modes won't, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating the CW requirement? Dave N7AF ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
The riff raff was deeply entrenched on 75 before VEC. I never tuned it for visitors as there was always something embarassing I had to explain away. Some of the AM vs. SSB wars on 75 were truly twisted events during the transition. The code requirement hasn't been an effective riff raff filter and it hasn't provided skilled traffic handlers in emergencies so it is no wonder the REQUIREMENT is going by the way side. By all indications, Morse itself is very alive and doing well. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com Updated with SPICE for Hams and QRP Rigs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:44 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? Jim wrote: > ... each and very one of those guys passed a code test! This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the operator licensing exam process. Mike / KK5F ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
Exactly. I fought every attempt to dumb down or eliminate the code requirement in the past. I MAY have been right 30 years ago, but it is wrong today. It is just another mode with its own advantages and disadvantages. It is my mode of choice just as it is yours, but others make different choices and it's all good depending on what you are trying to accomplish. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com Updated with SPICE for Hams and QRP Rigs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:02 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test) > The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be > "found out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can > help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth > of skilled CW operators as a problem. This all wraps around to dropping the Morse requirement. As much as we'd like to find some justification for maintaining the requirement, it doesn't seem like there is one -- from the perspective of Amateur Radio as a public service. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with CW. It's the only mode I'm interested in, though I bought a mic to test my SSB board. I find CW challenging and therefore satisfying. After working several hundred Field Day CW QSOs (my first FD in 30 years) I dropped into the phone tent and was shocked at how long it took to complete a QSO. And at 2x the point value, I'm not sure why we even had a phone station. We'd be better off with two CW stations working two different bands. Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-) Craig ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?] and some K2 comments
Geez, thin line between sarcasm and reality, as I read it, although I've wondered about that sometimes listening to 75M SSB on my K2 (see - it's on a topic about K2's!). This discussion is going on at the QMN/NREN reflector much more objectively! I think we all need to lighten up and go along with the changes because the only thing that never changes is change its self. And with some objectivity we can make it better. 73HankK8DD And another K2 comment: This coming November look for FP/K8DD FP/AC8W and others. We will have about 4 or 5 K2/100's and a collection of amps and beams and wires from Miquelon for CQ WW CW. PSK-31 and RTTY before and after the contest. Jim Wiley wrote: OK Mike, I'll bite. Since the reference was to 75 meter operation, just how did these guys get their licenses then? Are you suggesting fraud in the examination process? That is a very serious charge, and you need to be able to prove it. Mike Morrow wrote: This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the operator licensng exam process. Mike / KK5F ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?]
OK Mike, I'll bite. Since the reference was to 75 meter operation, just how did these guys get their licenses then? Are you suggesting fraud in the examination process? That is a very serious charge, and you need to be able to prove it. Yes, there have been some irregularities, and as far as I know, each and every one has been dealt with by Riley and crew. Licenses have been denied or cancelled, usually as the result of failure to respond to a directive that the applicant appear for retesting. From what Riley says, exam fraud is not at all common, he rarely encounters more than 2 or 3 instances per year, more often none. There have been a couple of instances where large groups were involved, but they have been resolved. Are you aware of something that isn't known elsewhere? I suggest that if you are, you let Riley Hollingsworth know immediately. His email is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I happen to run a pretty good size VEC operation (Anchorage ARC VEC, Inc.), and I can assure you that every VEC organization takes their job very seriously. Interestingly enough, in those very rare cases where some funny business has taken place, as far as I can determine it has always been the people in charge of the particular VEC themselves who have brought the problem to the attention of the FCC. They are as interested in getting rid of "bad apples" as anyone. Since this subject is "off topic" for this list, perhaps after one last exchange here, it would be better if we continued this thread off the reflector. - Jim, KL7CC Mike Morrow wrote: This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the operator licensng exam process. Mike / KK5F ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
As an old traffic hound (does anyone remember ROOA?) nearly 50 years ago, I regularly worked and ran CW traffic nets, and made BPL (500 messages/month, not originations) at least a half dozen times. What we call traffic nets today are a bad joke compared to those nets. Today, hams are simply poorly trained (even untrained) to handle traffic, because real traffic nets are few and far between. Not surprising -- there's rarely a use for them in today's world until something big happens. In those days, when something big happened, hams were prepared, because we had the ongoing training and discipline of REAL traffic nets. Today, that is simply not the case. How many on this list know, off the top of their head, the proper format for a piece of traffic? How many have even HANDLED a piece of traffic in proper format (or heard it being handled)? I find the assertion that SSB is easier copy in the presence of aurora hard to believe. I've worked AU on 6 meters since 1958, and I can tell you that CW works FAR FAR better than SSB under those conditions. Any decent CW op can make pretty good copy of a heavily distorted AU signal that's reasonably above the noise. The reality is that a marginal antenna and low power has a far better chance of solid communications using CW with a good op than an equally good op on SSB. The difference is operator training, not technology. But consider this -- I've worked only a bit of PSK31, but it seems to me that it has much of the advantage of CW for communications with low power and/or marginal antennas. A PSK31 rig is VERY easy to put together in an emergency package -- all it takes is a radio, an antenna, a laptop, Simon Brown's excellent free PSK31 software, and a pair of interface cables that anyone can make with cables they buy at Radio Shack and modify to fit their rigs. Such a rig would use minimal battery power, because traffic could be transmitted in short bursts, and uses standard components. All you need to stay on the air for a long time is a means of recharging your batteries. It also doesn't depend on repeaters, which could be down when they are most needed. Each station in an emergency area could simply work directly to one or more assigned partners outside the affected area, and that partner dumps the traffic onto conventional channels (the internet, etc.). Jim Brown K9YC (ex-W9NEC, W8FNI) ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Jim wrote: > ... each and very one of those guys passed a code test! This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the operator licensing exam process. Mike / KK5F ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Yes Craig, and each and very one of those guys passed a code test! Yes indeedy, that ole' Morse code sure does serve as a mighty fine filter to keep the riff raff out. - Jim, KL7CC Craig Rairdin wrote: Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-) Craig ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
> The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be > "found out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can > help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth > of skilled CW operators as a problem. This all wraps around to dropping the Morse requirement. As much as we'd like to find some justification for maintaining the requirement, it doesn't seem like there is one -- from the perspective of Amateur Radio as a public service. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with CW. It's the only mode I'm interested in, though I bought a mic to test my SSB board. I find CW challenging and therefore satisfying. After working several hundred Field Day CW QSOs (my first FD in 30 years) I dropped into the phone tent and was shocked at how long it took to complete a QSO. And at 2x the point value, I'm not sure why we even had a phone station. We'd be better off with two CW stations working two different bands. Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-) Craig ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
I think you are right on the money, Craig. That's my concern, that we are all living a long-standing myth which DID have a basis in fact 30 years ago, but is irrelevant to the world today. LOCAL hams can provide a vital communication link with VHF from the immediate area hit to the outside world. But ham emergency ops outside the area are an anachronism or at best a minor player. The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be "found out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth of skilled CW operators as a problem. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:32 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test) I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity), and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the "official" government communication channels. Craig ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
Craig wrote: I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity), and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the "official" government communication channels. - A well-honed system always lags behind the latest/greatest technology. I used to chuckle as I worked on required shipboard CW consoles in a radio room that also had TOR, satellite telephones and, when needed, an internet connection! All within easy reach of the guy at the key, like many of our hamshacks today. The problem with VHF has always been limited range. When repeaters are available, that's fine. But often they aren't. That's where people like the HF Pack ops and others all equipped with a K2 capable of SSB, maybe a buddypole or even a whip stuck in their backpack, and some batteries can get an instant signal out many tens of miles with telephone reliability. Often that range can be in the hundreds of miles. Not that CW couldn't be of critical value in some scenarios, but 99.9% of the time is a voice contact. Where Ham emergency communications provides a valuable resource is in "shadowing" key people when cellular phones are jammed. That allows the person to almost talk to the other end as if he were on the phone. A question gets an almost instant answer, often one that he can hear personally. It's great for filling in where traditional emergency services were swamped. When the Loma Prieta quake hit San Francisco, I was working for a land mobile company. We had some repeaters that were still operational. We suspended all air-time billing and got all the idle cabs we could to key points so they could use the communications system. It was invaluable during those first few hours since most mountaintop repeaters were off the air. Even the emergency service repeaters in critical areas (Mt. Loma Prieta was both the epicenter and one of the most popular repeater mountains). Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
> I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that > CW requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops. > In the Ham world, using phone means that more operators are available > everywhere, so there are likely more operators available any time and > in any place they are needed. It seems to me that the most likely use of ham radio in an emergency is to quickly establish local communications in areas where all communication is out. That's likely to be VHF, perhaps aided by a quickly deployed repeater or two. I think the more interesting philosophical question long-term revolves around the ubiquitous Internet. Back 30 years ago when I was more involved in handling traffic during natural disasters, it seems like most of what we did was health/welfare inquiries. Now, if survivor lists can get to a location with Internet access, these lists can be placed on the Web and anyone in the world can access it directly. Combine this with 24-hour cable news networks and you eliminate most of the need for long-range communication. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC had *cameras* and live reports deliberately placed in areas that were *about* to be hit, and reported live while Katrina was hitting them. They then were *there* at the Superdome and convention center in N.O. before the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or local ham radio club. If DHS Secy Chertoff and FEMA Director Brown had watched Fox News instead of listening to state and local government officials, they would have had a much better idea what was going on in the hours immediately after Katrina passed through, and supplies and transportation could have gotten to hard-hit areas much earlier. But since they depended on "official" channels and didn't turn on a TV, they didn't know what was going on. I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity), and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the "official" government communication channels. Craig ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
Thank you Ron ;) My first experience with the Amateur Radio Service was through participation in nets. These were FM repeater nets initially, then SSB HF nets, and finally CW NTS nets. I learned to pass traffic for NTS both using voice and via CW. It takes practice. Net procedures, phonetics, prosigns (both CW and voice) are something which requires repetition. When an emergency occurs and one is required to work ECOM the training needs to be so ingrained phonetics and procedures are automatic. Ms. Patricia and I have trained quite a number of folks in ECOM (ARECC levels 1, 2, and 3) for the local ARES/RACES group. I have been involved in ARES and in MARS for a number of years. One of the reasons I started the Elecraft CW Net was to get folks used to the idea of using CW using net procedures and getting them interested in contacts other than rag chews or contests. Tom, N0SS, and I have modified and adapted normal net procedures and QN codes to our needs. Working a CW NTS net is different but not wildly so. Gaining proficiency in CW is one thing but passing accurate traffic is another. When Pat and I train folks we have them pass traffic in groups. Carter, N3AO, gave us some tips. One of them was to have multiple people pass traffic simultaneously in the same room to mimic the chaos in a comms center. It worked. Our trainees have worked comms at the local sheriff's office and at the county EOC where the noise level gets pretty high. They valued our training and told us so as soon as the emergency was over. Thank you Carter, you gave great advice. Pat and I developed our hybrid classroom material to cover ECOM for the Oregon and Pacific Northwest area. We don't get hurricanes but do have floods, typhoons, earthquakes, and forest fires. Handling traffic is an important part of our training. I have not had the chance to teach others CW ECOM work but I would love to do so. We may have a call out of our local ARES group to assist some evacuees from New Orleans. I am on the list. I got to sell amateur radio and ECOMs to the local TV station last week for some work I had done for the SATERN folks. I did not get a chance to view the interview since we cannot receive television here but was told by an op I had never met that the interview portrayed the service in a very good light. I am thankful for that. I have worked in a newsroom before and know how a story can be spun in various directions. The reporter and camera man were both very kind and caring individuals. Hopefully they will send me a copy of the spot. Kevin. KD5ONS (Still Net Control Operator 5th Class) On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:32:25 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that CW requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops. Handling a QSO, even a rag chew, is a far, far cry from participating in a controlled CW net. That's a skill that takes time, more time, and even more time and a lot of patience and dedication to master. Just ask Kevin Rock who runs the Elecraft CW net! Getting enough Hams current with the skills to do that efficiently has always been a huge problem, even when every Ham had to be proficient at CW to get a license. That's the real reason for all those routine traffic nets we used to have across the bands every night. Even back then, how many of those experienced ops would be in the middle of the disaster, ready to handle traffic? Not many, not often. ... Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
[Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
Phil wrote: That was interesting. In 1958 I was on the National Geophysical Expedition to the North Pole on Drift station Alpha. KL7FLA and W9DVM/MM. We were floating. When we had severe aurora and you could turn all gains wide open and hear nothing, CW was always the first to be heard from Fairbanks and then SSB. That pattern never failed. The narrow-band nature of CW makes it audible long before a relatively wide-band mode like SSB. That's simple physics. Narrower bandwidths mean less noise power coming through, Less noise means it takes less signal to be heard, provided the signal fits in that narrow bandwidth. Here in Oregon it's rare Eu QSO that doesn't involve listening through auroral flutter. Sometimes its TOUGH! But if the other guy'll QRS, it's usually easy copy. That's one thing CW has that phone doesn't: easily adjustable bandwidth and data rates. Saying words v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y on SSB doesn't help much. I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that CW requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops. Handling a QSO, even a rag chew, is a far, far cry from participating in a controlled CW net. That's a skill that takes time, more time, and even more time and a lot of patience and dedication to master. Just ask Kevin Rock who runs the Elecraft CW net! Getting enough Hams current with the skills to do that efficiently has always been a huge problem, even when every Ham had to be proficient at CW to get a license. That's the real reason for all those routine traffic nets we used to have across the bands every night. Even back then, how many of those experienced ops would be in the middle of the disaster, ready to handle traffic? Not many, not often. It's the same reason CW was dropped from the Maritime service. It isn't that the new satellite-based GMDSS system is cheaper to install, it's not. But it's cheaper to operate: no CW operator required! No highly skilled people need be present at the critical moment, like Phillips and Bride sending CQD CQD CQD DE MGY MGY MGY from the Titanic that April night. Nowadays all anyone has to do is hit a big red button on the bridge or pick up a telephone handset. In the Ham world, using phone means that more operators are available everywhere, so there are likely more operators available any time and in any place they are needed. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
