Dropping the Code Test
Locked
12345
12345
 
|
Emergency communications where the power lines are dead and the
repeaters are down. I've been in a few of those situations and the saving grace was battery powered rigs and CW. > Are there any novel and compelling reasons for keeping the code test? -- 73 de Thomas M. Beaudry K8LA / YS1ZTM ARS # 1566 ARRL Life member FPQRP # 1005 NAQCC # 0223 K2 # 3422 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron D'Eau Claire-2
> There was a time when getting an extra class license in the
> USA required first having years of experience as an Amateur > Radio licensee, then passing tests significantly harder than > the those for the other exams, both theory and code. Two years licensed as a General or Advanced when I sat for the Extra with the FCC traveling road show in the UP of MI. And if you only had your General, you had to pass the Advanced before you could try the Extra. > The "Extra" was something one expected only those who had > done a lot of self-study and work, or someone who had a good > technical school education would try for. Or the guys that were grandfathered in because they had 25 years of uninterrupted experience and had held the old Class A license. But yes, Extras were looked up to back then and that was the reason I started studying for mine as soon as I passed my Novice. > Times change... That they do... -- 73 de Thomas M. Beaudry K8LA / YS1ZTM ARS # 1566 ARRL Life member FPQRP # 1005 NAQCC # 0223 K2 # 3422 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by W2AGN
> Well, I took both the Amateur Extra and the First Class
> Commercial Radiotelephone back in 1974. At that time > at least, they were comparable. I even remember someone (ARRL?) petitioning the FCC to grant written credit for the Extra if you had passed the First Class Commercial and vice-versa because they were so similar technically. The FCC only denied the petition because 25% of the questions were regulatory and not comparable. -- 73 de Thomas M. Beaudry K8LA / YS1ZTM ARS # 1566 ARRL Life member FPQRP # 1005 NAQCC # 0223 K2 # 3422 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Thomas M. Beaudry
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:07:24 -0400, "Thomas M.Beaudry" <[hidden email]>
wrote: >Emergency communications where the power lines are dead and the >repeaters are down. I've been in a few of those situations and the >saving grace was battery powered rigs and CW. > >> Are there any novel and compelling reasons for keeping the code test? As a new guy, Tom, I was surprised to discover that despite poor band conditions, the hurricane emergency nets are all using phone. Does the availability of power make the difference? _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: Emergency Nets (was: Dropping the Code Test)
|
|
> As a new guy, Tom, I was surprised to discover that despite poor
> band conditions, the hurricane emergency nets are all using phone. ? Does the availability of power make the difference? On a related note, I've monitored several of the nets on 40M and 75M each night this week and I've yet to hear any real traffic. The closest we came was a guy who called in saying he had access to a survivor list. When asked about it he told them it was at www.cnn.com. He then had to spell it phonetically several times -- apparently nobody on the net had ever heard of CNN. There was a story on Fox News tonight about a ham who relayed a message all over the place from someone needing evacuation, only to have the last recipient get on the phone and call the Louisiana State Police, who solved the problem. Why the Red Cross in Tulsa, who initiated the message, didn't just make that phone call instead of involving a ham operator was never explained. Is Katrina the final proof that the Amateur Radio "Service" in the US has outlived its public service raison d'etre? Or am I just on the wrong freqs? Always the devil's advocate -- Craig NZ0R K1 #1966 K2/100 #4941 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Matt Osborn
Despite this oft repeated myth, CW is RARELY ever used in emergency
communications. I talked to a number of different hams in So Cal whose ham radio involvement is virtually all emergency services ops and NONE of them ever hear CW used. I mentioned that on QRP-L and only one person (John WB8RCR) could come up with a situation where CW is regularly used. He is in Upper Michigan and, I don't remember the details, but it had to do with their high latitude and auroral effects. Otherwise, no one there could come up with a single emergency services group using CW ops for any purpose. Certainly, there are isolated cases where CW has been used as a last resort for particular communications, but then there are cases of trapped individuals tapping out pleas for help with a rock. There are many interesting and useful applications for CW and it has been virtually my only mode of operation for 48 years, but to continue to tout it as necessary for emergency preparedness is to deny reality. I would be willing to bet during the worst moments of the current crisis in the Gulf states that nobody was heard to utter the words, "If only we could get some CW ops in there with battery power rigs." It just doesn't happen. I dare say there will be no stories of CW saving the day for anyone. Most emergency services ops are handled on VHF/UHF FM. Far less is handle via HF SSB. Consider that amateur radio emergency services must interface with other services whose operators don't use CW and you can see it just isn't very useful for emergency communications in the real world. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Matt Osborn Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 8:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:07:24 -0400, "Thomas M.Beaudry" <[hidden email]> wrote: >Emergency communications where the power lines are dead and the >repeaters are down. I've been in a few of those situations and the >saving grace was battery powered rigs and CW. > >> Are there any novel and compelling reasons for keeping the code test? As a new guy, Tom, I was surprised to discover that despite poor band conditions, the hurricane emergency nets are all using phone. Does the availability of power make the difference? _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
If only we had some high power, high speed, automated Pactor stations
roaming the HF bands at will to handle all that critical emergency traffic you heard. Think of the possibilities, Craig. Somebody should e-mail the ARRL and Winlink to see if they could work something like that out. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:19 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Emergency Nets (was: Dropping the Code Test) > As a new guy, Tom, I was surprised to discover that despite poor band > conditions, the hurricane emergency nets are all using phone. ? Does the availability of power make the difference? On a related note, I've monitored several of the nets on 40M and 75M each night this week and I've yet to hear any real traffic. The closest we came was a guy who called in saying he had access to a survivor list. When asked about it he told them it was at www.cnn.com. He then had to spell it phonetically several times -- apparently nobody on the net had ever heard of CNN. There was a story on Fox News tonight about a ham who relayed a message all over the place from someone needing evacuation, only to have the last recipient get on the phone and call the Louisiana State Police, who solved the problem. Why the Red Cross in Tulsa, who initiated the message, didn't just make that phone call instead of involving a ham operator was never explained. Is Katrina the final proof that the Amateur Radio "Service" in the US has outlived its public service raison d'etre? Or am I just on the wrong freqs? Always the devil's advocate -- Craig NZ0R K1 #1966 K2/100 #4941 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by EricJ-2
EricJ wrote:
> Despite this oft repeated myth, CW is RARELY ever used in emergency > communications. ...these days. It certainly was in the past. > Otherwise, no one there could come > up with a single emergency services group using CW ops for any purpose. ...because it's hard to find competent operators. > I would be > willing to bet during the worst moments of the current crisis in the Gulf > states that nobody was heard to utter the words, "If only we could get some > CW ops in there with battery power rigs." It just doesn't happen. I've heard over and over in news reports that 'there's no communications', people can't find out if their relatives and friends are OK, etc. This is EXACTLY the kind of situation in which CW operators with battery powered rigs would excel. > Consider that amateur radio emergency services must interface > with other services whose operators don't use CW and you can see it just > isn't very useful for emergency communications in the real world. Health and welfare traffic can be independent of other services. And why can't the interface consist of a ham handing a piece of paper to his other-service counterpart? Having handled traffic by CW in the dark ages (somewhere I have a BPL medallion) I can tell you that phone cannot come close to the efficiency or accuracy of CW in handling formal traffic. And there is, or should be, a structure that already exists for them to fit into -- the ARRL NTS -- which would provide connections to these operators. Frequencies, schedules, liasons, all should exist. The problem is not that CW wouldn't be useful, it's that there aren't enough competent CW operators who know how to handle traffic. And many of the ones that do are age 60+. Most of these guys aren't up to being helicoptered in to stricken areas. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: Emergency Nets (was: Dropping the Code Test)
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
I was monitoring the emergency net on 80 meters the other day when a
group of old boys started up their regular net about 2k down and started bleeding all over the e. net. I went down to see who they were and tuned in just in time to hear some guy from the e. net break in and ask them to move down a couple of more k as they were causing interference. The old boys were pretty indignant at first, explaining how they always used this frequency and how there was another net about 4k up. "Why did you pick such busy place" he said, "Never heard of such a thing" said another, "but we'll move down". I thought they were pretty nice guys, giving up their regular slot and all. They sure had no idea of the emergency net though. On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:18:53 -0500, "Craig Rairdin" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> As a new guy, Tom, I was surprised to discover that despite poor >> band conditions, the hurricane emergency nets are all using phone. >? Does the availability of power make the difference? > >On a related note, I've monitored several of the nets on 40M and 75M each >night this week and I've yet to hear any real traffic. The closest we came >was a guy who called in saying he had access to a survivor list. When asked >about it he told them it was at www.cnn.com. He then had to spell it >phonetically several times -- apparently nobody on the net had ever heard of >CNN. > >There was a story on Fox News tonight about a ham who relayed a message all >over the place from someone needing evacuation, only to have the last >recipient get on the phone and call the Louisiana State Police, who solved >the problem. Why the Red Cross in Tulsa, who initiated the message, didn't >just make that phone call instead of involving a ham operator was never >explained. > >Is Katrina the final proof that the Amateur Radio "Service" in the US has >outlived its public service raison d'etre? Or am I just on the wrong freqs? > >Always the devil's advocate -- > >Craig >NZ0R >K1 #1966 >K2/100 #4941 > >_______________________________________________ >Elecraft mailing list >Post to: [hidden email] >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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen W. Kercel
In a message dated 9/4/05 8:50:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes: > This is really tiring to hear. "CW subbands" has always been the short > way of saying "the frequency segments where voice (and later other wide > modes) are not allowed". Yup, but a lot of us say "CW/data subbands" too. Nobody actually thinks that CW is restricted > > to those frequencies or that only CW is allowed to be used in them. > I have encountered more than a few hams who think that there *are* CW-only subbands on HF, and don't realize that data modes share all of that space. When someone says "exclusive CW subbands" or "CW-only bandspace" it's pretty clear they think only Morse Code is allowed. 73 de Jim, N2EY _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
As we all know, there is traffic on 14.265 with occassional inactivity (inactivity is good). I too, am surprised with the success of using phone. Satern uses phone and their protocols require use of phonetics when in doubt. They also require use of "pro-words" during traffic handling which works very well. Sometimes during an exchange, one can become emotional and the need to be clear is important. That is maybe why CNN was repeated phonetically. Protocol rules, do not "assume". The use of digital modes may work well, but you still need phone to originate the data. I find the very basics of ham radio always comes through when disaster strikes. Ron wb1hga "CW. an esoteric experience" _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vic K2VCO
Check out the following nets http://www.aa8vs.org/nren both CW and Winlink
http://www.qsl.net/w8ihx CW net been running since '35. The nets are running and traffic is being passed and ops are standing by to assist 7.050 and 14.050 Just need to get the word out..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vic K2VCO" <[hidden email]> To: "EricJ" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test > EricJ wrote: >> Despite this oft repeated myth, CW is RARELY ever used in emergency >> communications. > > ...these days. It certainly was in the past. > >> Otherwise, no one there could come >> up with a single emergency services group using CW ops for any purpose. > > ...because it's hard to find competent operators. > >> I would be >> willing to bet during the worst moments of the current crisis in the Gulf >> states that nobody was heard to utter the words, "If only we could get >> some >> CW ops in there with battery power rigs." It just doesn't happen. > > I've heard over and over in news reports that 'there's no communications', > people can't find out if their relatives and friends are OK, etc. This is > EXACTLY the kind of situation in which CW operators with battery powered > rigs would excel. > >> Consider that amateur radio emergency services must interface >> with other services whose operators don't use CW and you can see it just >> isn't very useful for emergency communications in the real world. > > Health and welfare traffic can be independent of other services. And why > can't the interface consist of a ham handing a piece of paper to his > other-service counterpart? > > Having handled traffic by CW in the dark ages (somewhere I have a BPL > medallion) I can tell you that phone cannot come close to the efficiency > or accuracy of CW in handling formal traffic. And there is, or should be, > a structure that already exists for them to fit into -- the ARRL NTS -- > which would provide connections to these operators. Frequencies, > schedules, liasons, all should exist. > > The problem is not that CW wouldn't be useful, it's that there aren't > enough competent CW operators who know how to handle traffic. And many of > the ones that do are age 60+. Most of these guys aren't up to being > helicoptered in to stricken areas. > > -- > 73, > Vic, K2VCO > Fresno CA > http://www.qsl.net/k2vco > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vic K2VCO
Come on, Vic. Where is a CW operator going to set up? Are they going to set
up some place like the Superdome with all that pandemonium? Are they going to walk around operating HF with 10' poles sticking out of their back pocket like W0RW/PM? It just doesn't make sense when a ham on foot with a pocket sized HT on VHF communicating through a repeater or an on site dual band VHF/UHF mobile rig acting as a repeater can move fast, stay safe and get the message through using clear, clean FM. It's done all the time all over the country. Hams were not allowed in early-on because the situation on the ground was just not safe even for rescue personnel. Angry people, violence, shoot-outs. How's an HF CW guy going to deal with that? They weren't jumping out of helicopters with HF CW rigs. They are going in with VHF/UHF HTs to communicate with local emergency services and getting some H&W traffic out via VHF/UHF. It is then put on HF by guys sitting at home with big antennas and lots of power or the Internet. I live a few miles from the San Andreas Fault. I have a K1, K2 and KX1 all able to work on battery power for extended periods. But when the Big One hits and I need help, I'm grabbing my FT-470 HT first. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: Vic K2VCO [mailto:[hidden email]] > I would be > willing to bet during the worst moments of the current crisis in the > Gulf states that nobody was heard to utter the words, "If only we > could get some CW ops in there with battery power rigs." It just doesn't happen. I've heard over and over in news reports that 'there's no communications', people can't find out if their relatives and friends are OK, etc. This is EXACTLY the kind of situation in which CW operators with battery powered rigs would excel. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by roncasa
I went to the Satern web site to read about past emergencies that they were
involved in. I was surprised at the level of traffic. In most emergencies they were only handling a few hundred messages. I bring this up certainly not to minimize the importance of these messages to those involved, but to point out that voice is well suited to this volume of traffic, and there does not seem to be any real need for building high speed digital links on HF. I worked full-time at K2USA handling CW, SSB and even some AM traffic on ham nets and MARS nets. Even then (we opened the station to handle AK Earthquake traffic in 1964), throughput on SSB was comparable to that on CW when the operators at both ends were skilled. I have no doubt that there are isolated instances when CW is the only mode to get through, but for the bulk of "first responder" traffic and Health & Welfare traffic, VHF/UHF FM is a far better choice. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ron Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 6:52 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Emergency Nets As we all know, there is traffic on 14.265 with occassional inactivity (inactivity is good). I too, am surprised with the success of using phone. Satern uses phone and their protocols require use of phonetics when in doubt. They also require use of "pro-words" during traffic handling which works very well. Sometimes during an exchange, one can become emotional and the need to be clear is important. That is maybe why CNN was repeated phonetically. Protocol rules, do not "assume". The use of digital modes may work well, but you still need phone to originate the data. I find the very basics of ham radio always comes through when disaster strikes. Ron wb1hga "CW. an esoteric experience" _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by crmabbott
It is my understanding from a communication with WB8RCR, a member of the
Michigan Net, that CW is used because of a geographical anomaly in Upper Michigan. Because of the high latitude and presence of aurora in Winter, CW makes a regional net more reliable. It is the only instance I was able to turn up where emergency services personnel preferred CW over voice. The NREN you cited is sponsored by the same Michigan Net. Traffic volume is modest at best. The fact remains. HF CW is just not necessary or desirable in the vast majority of emergency communications. The military, including MARS, has abandoned it. There are no government agencies that I know in the US and maybe the world, that depend on CW for anything. That does not mean CW is useless. More and more hams are discovering that it gets a brief canned exchange across during contests and DXing. But that's a far cry from handling traffic from a flooded New Orleans or ground zero at the WTC. Things have changed, yet we promote the same myth that CW can save the day. Apparently, those who do this kind of work day after day, don't agree with you. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Mabbott [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:10 AM To: Vic K2VCO; EricJ Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test Check out the following nets http://www.aa8vs.org/nren both CW and Winlink http://www.qsl.net/w8ihx CW net been running since '35. The nets are running and traffic is being passed and ops are standing by to assist 7.050 and 14.050 Just need to get the word out..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vic K2VCO" <[hidden email]> To: "EricJ" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test > EricJ wrote: >> Despite this oft repeated myth, CW is RARELY ever used in emergency >> communications. > > ...these days. It certainly was in the past. > >> Otherwise, no one there could come >> up with a single emergency services group using CW ops for any purpose. > > ...because it's hard to find competent operators. > >> I would be >> willing to bet during the worst moments of the current crisis in the Gulf >> states that nobody was heard to utter the words, "If only we could get >> some >> CW ops in there with battery power rigs." It just doesn't happen. > > I've heard over and over in news reports that 'there's no communications', > people can't find out if their relatives and friends are OK, etc. This is > EXACTLY the kind of situation in which CW operators with battery powered > rigs would excel. > >> Consider that amateur radio emergency services must interface >> with other services whose operators don't use CW and you can see it just >> isn't very useful for emergency communications in the real world. > > Health and welfare traffic can be independent of other services. And why > can't the interface consist of a ham handing a piece of paper to his > other-service counterpart? > > Having handled traffic by CW in the dark ages (somewhere I have a BPL > medallion) I can tell you that phone cannot come close to the efficiency > or accuracy of CW in handling formal traffic. And there is, or should be, > a structure that already exists for them to fit into -- the ARRL NTS -- > which would provide connections to these operators. Frequencies, > schedules, liasons, all should exist. > > The problem is not that CW wouldn't be useful, it's that there aren't > enough competent CW operators who know how to handle traffic. And many of > the ones that do are age 60+. Most of these guys aren't up to being > helicoptered in to stricken areas. > > -- > 73, > Vic, K2VCO > Fresno CA > http://www.qsl.net/k2vco > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
OK, guys, get ready to hate me. Here in Alaska, (that's a bit North of Michigan, to our flatlander friends) - Aurora is the norm. As in - every day, 365 days a year. Some days it's no big deal, some days it eats your lunch, it's just a fact of life. As often as not, SSB will get through when CW won't. FACT - not a typo! Apparently, with rapid changes in path length, which is what is responsible for the waterey sound of classic aurora reflection propagation, CW signals sometimes get lost in the process. I think this might be because CW signals are on just one frequency, and the destructive effects of multipath (selective fading) can wipe out individual dits or dahs, making copy of CW problematic. SSB, on the other hand, occupies a comparatively wide channel, and has energy on any number of frequencies within that channel. So, during times when aurora is very active, SSB apparently gets through because it has a sort of built in frequency diversity. If a hole gets punched in a SSB signal at one spot, there are still hundreds of adjacent frequencies that have an equal chance of being reinforced. The net result is that SSB suffers from rapid shifts in tonal balance as the "notched out" frequencies shift rapidly within the SSB pass band, but enough energy still remains that copy is possible. You will note that I am not saying CW is totally disabled - often times enough gets through that the incomparable DSP unit that sits on your shoulders can make enough sense of what it gets to still come up with copy. After all, VHF DX via auroral reflection is done all the time. But, and this is the important part, there are indeed times when SSB gets through when CW cannot. Man - what a disgusting idea. <grin> High latitude propagation is very different from what most "South 48" hams take for normal. It is nothing unusual for us to have total HF shutdowns lasting days on end. Even when bands are not being wiped out by solar storms, we get caught between between lukewarm MUFs and elevated LUFs - we frequently have access to only one band - 20 meters - because we are caught between the MUF / LUF squeeze, and even then we will hear only a few of the strongest signals. My station is not all that bad either - I run a TH7 antenna at 75 feet. When the band is open, I can use my K2, but when it's ratty even my Mark 5 driving an ACOM 2000A may not be enough. Oh well, there's always Pinochle - Jim, KL7CC EricJ wrote: It is my understanding from a communication with WB8RCR, a member of the Michigan Net, that CW is used because of a geographical anomaly . . . . . <snip> _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
Why hate anyone, that is why a communicator needs to be versed in all the
tools. That would be SSB, digital, CW, etc... You are forced, since emergancies are not scheduled to take what ever mode works the best at the specific time and get the information applied in a standard format through..... 73 Chuck AA8VS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Wiley" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test > > OK, guys, get ready to hate me. > > Here in Alaska, (that's a bit North of Michigan, to our flatlander > friends) - Aurora is the norm. As in - every day, 365 days a year. Some > days it's no big deal, some days it eats your lunch, it's just a fact of > life. > > As often as not, SSB will get through when CW won't. FACT - not a typo! > > Apparently, with rapid changes in path length, which is what is > responsible for the waterey sound of classic aurora reflection > propagation, CW signals sometimes get lost in the process. I think this > might be because CW signals are on just one frequency, and the destructive > effects of multipath (selective fading) can wipe out individual dits or > dahs, making copy of CW problematic. > > SSB, on the other hand, occupies a comparatively wide channel, and has > energy on any number of frequencies within that channel. So, during times > when aurora is very active, SSB apparently gets through because it has a > sort of built in frequency diversity. If a hole gets punched in a SSB > signal at one spot, there are still hundreds of adjacent frequencies that > have an equal chance of being reinforced. The net result is that SSB > suffers from rapid shifts in tonal balance as the "notched out" > frequencies shift rapidly within the SSB pass band, but enough energy > still remains that copy is possible. > > You will note that I am not saying CW is totally disabled - often times > enough gets through that the incomparable DSP unit that sits on your > shoulders can make enough sense of what it gets to still come up with > copy. After all, VHF DX via auroral reflection is done all the time. > But, and this is the important part, there are indeed times when SSB gets > through when CW cannot. Man - what a disgusting idea. <grin> > > > High latitude propagation is very different from what most "South 48" > hams take for normal. It is nothing unusual for us to have total HF > shutdowns lasting days on end. Even when bands are not being wiped out > by solar storms, we get caught between between lukewarm MUFs and elevated > LUFs - we frequently have access to only one band - 20 meters - because we > are caught between the MUF / LUF squeeze, and even then we will hear only > a few of the strongest signals. My station is not all that bad either - I > run a TH7 antenna at 75 feet. When the band is open, I can use my K2, > but when it's ratty even my Mark 5 driving an ACOM 2000A may not be > enough. > > > Oh well, there's always Pinochle > > > - Jim, KL7CC > > > > EricJ wrote: > > It is my understanding from a communication with WB8RCR, a member of the > Michigan Net, that CW is used because of a geographical anomaly . . . . . > > <snip> > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Wiley-2
So much for the rationale for the ONLY CW emergency net I could come up
with. Hi. I suspect the REAL reason it is used is because it has been around since 1935 and it is an UP Michigan tradition, but I don't know that. I just relayed the rationale that John gave me. Another point that is missed is that emergency traffic is not just endless numbered messages relayed verbatim. A lot of it is emergency coordination where emergency services personnel are trying to get information out of an area or handle logistics that are not in the form of formal messages. This is often much easier on voice than on CW where decisionmakers can hear what is going on and relay instructions to the operator without formal messages passing back and forth. It might help us to preserve ham radio in the future if we learn to let go of the myths, and determine what we can contribute in the real world. We look foolish when we can't justify our cherished traditions to hard-nosed regulators. Me? I use CW all the time, not because it's better, but because it's fun. Sometimes that's justification enough. Eric KE6US www.ke6us.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jim Wiley Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:43 AM Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test OK, guys, get ready to hate me. Here in Alaska, (that's a bit North of Michigan, to our flatlander friends) - Aurora is the norm. As in - every day, 365 days a year. Some days it's no big deal, some days it eats your lunch, it's just a fact of life. As often as not, SSB will get through when CW won't. FACT - not a typo! Apparently, with rapid changes in path length, which is what is responsible for the waterey sound of classic aurora reflection propagation, CW signals sometimes get lost in the process. I think this might be because CW signals are on just one frequency, and the destructive effects of multipath (selective fading) can wipe out individual dits or dahs, making copy of CW problematic. SSB, on the other hand, occupies a comparatively wide channel, and has energy on any number of frequencies within that channel. So, during times when aurora is very active, SSB apparently gets through because it has a sort of built in frequency diversity. If a hole gets punched in a SSB signal at one spot, there are still hundreds of adjacent frequencies that have an equal chance of being reinforced. The net result is that SSB suffers from rapid shifts in tonal balance as the "notched out" frequencies shift rapidly within the SSB pass band, but enough energy still remains that copy is possible. You will note that I am not saying CW is totally disabled - often times enough gets through that the incomparable DSP unit that sits on your shoulders can make enough sense of what it gets to still come up with copy. After all, VHF DX via auroral reflection is done all the time. But, and this is the important part, there are indeed times when SSB gets through when CW cannot. Man - what a disgusting idea. <grin> High latitude propagation is very different from what most "South 48" hams take for normal. It is nothing unusual for us to have total HF shutdowns lasting days on end. Even when bands are not being wiped out by solar storms, we get caught between between lukewarm MUFs and elevated LUFs - we frequently have access to only one band - 20 meters - because we are caught between the MUF / LUF squeeze, and even then we will hear only a few of the strongest signals. My station is not all that bad either - I run a TH7 antenna at 75 feet. When the band is open, I can use my K2, but when it's ratty even my Mark 5 driving an ACOM 2000A may not be enough. Oh well, there's always Pinochle - Jim, KL7CC EricJ wrote: It is my understanding from a communication with WB8RCR, a member of the Michigan Net, that CW is used because of a geographical anomaly . . . . . <snip> _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by EricJ-2
EricJ wrote:
> Come on, Vic. Where is a CW operator going to set up? Are they going to set > up some place like the Superdome with all that pandemonium? Are they going > to walk around operating HF with 10' poles sticking out of their back pocket > like W0RW/PM? It just doesn't make sense when a ham on foot with a pocket > sized HT on VHF communicating through a repeater or an on site dual band > VHF/UHF mobile rig acting as a repeater can move fast, stay safe and get the > message through using clear, clean FM. And if there are hundreds of people trying to tell their relatives that they're alive? The operator will have to pass names, addresses, and phone numbers using phonetics (well, not the phone numbers). > Hams were not allowed in early-on because the situation on the ground was > just not safe even for rescue personnel. Angry people, violence, shoot-outs. > How's an HF CW guy going to deal with that? How does FM make it easier to deal with? -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by EricJ-2
EricJ wrote:
> Another point that is missed is that emergency traffic is not just endless > numbered messages relayed verbatim. But this is exactly what health & welfare traffic is. It is slightly lower priority than emergency traffic, but it is very high volume. The police, etc., have their own communications systems and don't need ham help. There are plenty of applications for CW in an emergency. The overriding reason that CW is not used anymore in emergencies is simply that there are too few qualified operators. Someone who can copy 15 wpm in his head, or even recognize his own call in a pileup at 30 wpm is most likely not capable of accurately copying traffic at a reasonable speed. -- 73, Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] 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 |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |