Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 16, 10:30 pm, wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:44 pm, wrote: . Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! Actually I suspect it is a clear message from the embedded "gentlemen". 73, de Hans, K0HB Yet those were the ones who cared enough to take the time and effort to comment. There was nothing stopping the proponents from commenting. If they didn't care enough to comment, they don't have much room to complain. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
|
|It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster |is changing. There are localized emergencies. There are regional and national disasters. Two different animals that require different levels of response. I don't see the need for extra radio channels going away anytime soon. Those fancy DHS grant mobile communications centers on wheels are neat. Typically they bring together fire, EMS, police comms at a single site with an interoperatability black box to tie it all together..... When the action is nowhere near a working Nextel tower or public service repeater site and the satellite links are maxxed out and the local telco can not climb a pole to jack them into the Internet or POTS Amateur Radio technology will see action. The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. Steve N2UBP |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone
wrote: The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. You've noticed......! g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
Phil Kane writes:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon KÃ¥re Hellan wrote: Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if anybody is curious. I am. Are they available in English? I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" 73 de LA4RT Jin, Trondheim, Norway |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 4:55 pm, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" Essentially it says "Here are your bands. Mind your bandwidth. Have a nice day." I love it! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" 73 de LA4RT Jin, Trondheim, Norway I'm impressed. Especially when I think about how I would react if someone asked for US regs in Norwegian. Of course, I could probably take the FCC prose and ask Google to translate it; it would be just as opaque in the machine-translated version as it is in English/legalese. grin Thanks, Jin. 73, Steve KB9X |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 2:11�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone wrote: The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. You've noticed......! *g -- I have to disagree somewhat. Having gone through an exercise in determining "closeness" of same-band aircraft radios on the same aircraft (civil aviation band at 118-137 MHz) running 10 to 20 W max AM, only five wavelengths separation was fine. That was back at a time (early 1970s) when high-third-order IM specs hardly existed. In a relatively local area, most such emergency comms will be, generally LOS, and not "working DX." There's no point in everyone running transmitters full-out in power for relatively short distances. Yes, I'm familiar with Oregon topography but NVIS techniques can also get out of the trees and the deep low spots. If there's a Power Output control on the rigs in use, it ought to be used to drop the RF output and minimize desensing of nearby radios. I'm just tossing in some things to consider in real-world conditions. It isn't anything against what anyone is doing. 73, Len AF6AY |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Steven Stone wrote:
The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. Not if the comm center is properly designed. The techniques for siting multiple transmitters/receivers in confined areas and minimizing mutual interference are pretty well established. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 7:16�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: * *Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms * *are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus. * *It may be that much smaller areas have scarce * *facilities but that is up to those locations. *I'm proud * *that this area I live in has beefed up its communications * *in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. *What it * *has done can be a model of integration for other areas. * *Just a view a bit different than most others in here. I suppose that what I'm about to say will raise some eyebrows, too. It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster is changing. *Not so many years ago, it wasn't unusual for all communications to be rendered inoperable when a disaster hit, and ham radio was the only link with the outside world. *We're proud of our "When everything else fails, ham radio still works" abilities. Well, that's what I've kept seeing/hearing for over half a century as an adult. I have yet to witness it first-hand. That comes from growing up in northern Illinois which had (sometimes) rather hard winters, although not to the extent of NW New York state conditions. I've been through several earthquakes in the Greater Los Angeles area plus at the edges of a typhoon elsewhere...plus a couple of river over- flows also elsewhere. I'll discount the typhoons since those were in northern Asia and I was in the Army at the time. Being aware and informed through all of those events, I just haven't seen/witnessed any case where "when all else fails, ham radio will come through" equivalent. I've never been IN a hurricane nor IN a tornado location nor a tsunami nor in the middle of a massive firestorm. However, I've seen videos (amateur photographer videos) of such events on TV news...including the very newsworthy Katrina disaster. Seeing such things on TV is very definitely NOT being "in" one or suddenly becoming an "expert" on surviving one. My last event (of being, most definitely) IN one was 13 years ago and that was quite enough, sufficiently anxiety-prone feelings despite having gone through several earthquakes of lesser shaking before, both here and in Japan. Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it? Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while communications afterwards concern survivors, the living. I think it is important to differentiate between the two and ALSO consider what actually exists in the entire communications infrastructure that can and does survive. Example of observable condition of flooding prior to the Katrina disaster: TV news of a journalist being relayed live via satellite from the Dakotas...with a clear background image of a National Guard comms humvee with its whip antennas tied down for nevis operation. First, the TV person was getting through (with wide bandwidth) and obviously in portable operation. Secondly, the NG units use the same military radio equipment the regular military does and are far more capable of greater environmental extremes than nearly all amateur radio gear. On the newsgroups and various ham websites, everyone seemed to be giving high-fives to all hams for their marvelous communications accomplishments...without themselves being there. :-( My question has always been, who is kidding who on all this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some. Did everyone get INTO amateur radio JUST to do all that emergency work? I really don't think so for the vast majority of radio amateurs. I got into it quite late in life for one reason and one reason only: To have fun with it, to enjoy it, to experiment (on a minor scale)...after spending a half century of adult work experience IN radio-electronics and enjoying all that work. I might even try PSK31 out of curiosity; I respect the work of G3PLX, Peter Martinez, and think it is an elegant solution to casual communications in a very bandwidth-restricted spectrum space. The one thing that is always needed during a disaster is manpower. *You can stage a satellite dish, but you need someone who is trained to deploy it after the hurricane passes through. *You can equip a truck with all the communications equipment needed to hook up an EOC with the outside world, but who drives the truck into the area and sets up the equipment there? Around here the (unpaid) volunteers of the Los Angeles Auxiliary Communications Service do. They volunteer to do what is needed. If that work is the "grunt" variety, then they do "grunt" work. That's just how it is in real emergencies. The amateur radio community is the ideal place to recruit this kind of expertise. *An alternative to doing things in the traditional way -- using your own equipment and communicating between hams using ham frequencies -- is to affiliate with an organization that is going to need manpower when a disaster hits. *It's a different way of accomplishing the same goal. *As the requirements for communication become more stringent due to pressure to prevent fraud and maintain privacy, I think that this aspect will become more and more important. Well, I've served four separate terms of Jury Duty in my county and served on five different juries. I don't plan on becoming an attorney nor being involved in law...nor have I planned to do so. Yet the jury panelists must exist IN a very real courtroom environment and focus their attention ON the law and case at hand. Good citizenship should, I think, involve responsibility to the community. I don't plan on becoming any sort of "emergency worker" in communications yet, if a really big one occurs, I feel that any kind of civic aid should be given, whatever kind. I present this as food for thought and an alternative, not as any criticism of current operations. Understood. :-) Please color me skeptical on lots of the emotional issues that have arisen in amateur radio over time. I feel we should look at ALL sides of possibilities and not get involved in the "cheering section" for "our team." Excuse me while I continue to go through the manual for this IC-746Pro that arrived safely yesterday. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
PBS's Newshour 15 min segment on VOA-BBG (FRI 26 JAN)? Do mpeg copies exist (that are fully downloadable)? | Shortwave | |||
aluminium element segment corrosion & weather proofing... ? | Antenna | |||
Dipole Extension | Antenna | |||
dipole extension? | Antenna | |||
Daws Butler will be the subject of today's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED segment. | Broadcasting |