On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:25:37 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at all.

I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed amateur spectrum
for that project.

Because they probably bought cheap amateur equipment, opened it out,
and then found out that there weren't any channels available in the
450-470 MHz band that they could get licenses and frequency
coordination for. Several sports events did just that until they got
caught. One of my "day jobs" is as frequency coordinator for systems
in the 450 MHz band, and we run into this all the time. The Congress
refuses to give the FCC the necessary funding to apprehend them, and
the Justice Department refuses to prosecute what they claim is petty
offenses.

I've ranted about this before. I'm glad that Chris Imlay (ARRL
General Counsel) got on this thing as hard as he did. We all owe a
round of thanks to him.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Maybe - or maybe not. Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain
about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

I should have been more clear, and qualfied the above as "here in the
USA"

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain

about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.

It was a US restriction a long time ago.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary users of
420-450 MHz.
So while we can complain, we don't have the same "standing", as it
were.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On May 4, 11:13 pm, Bill Powell wrote:
Anyone with some level of technical knowledge might wonder why a
billion dollar (boondoggle) "radar system" can't discriminate between
a fixed, known "target" (like a repeater)and one that is moving, comes
from over the horizon which might be something nasty?

I think the radar system can indeed discriminate. One problem, I
think, may be this:

Radar that uses a single antenna for both transmit and receive cannot
"see behind" a
reflecting obstacle, nor an interfering RF source. So the amateur
repeater casts a "shadow"
as it were.

To make it more of a sporting course, the amateur signal is
intermittent, and FM. Which may look
like all kinds of things on the radar display.


Sounds like some real shoddy engineering took place at taxpayer
expense.

Maybe, but probably not. Some things are fundamental limitations of
the physics involved.

I can think of 3 or 4 ways to remove false targets w/o
loosing any system level accuracy or sensitivity. In fact, didn't
they perfect that during the cold war?

Of course the processing system may be able to be programmed to ignore
the amateur repeater - which would make it the perfect place to hide
something.

Remember that the radar system in question is probably being used in
roles it was not originally designed for. That's probably why the
problem didn't show up before. For example, if the radar was meant to
look for high-altitude intruders, things like ground clutter and RF
sources below a few hundred feet could simply be ignored. If the
system is now being adapted to look for low-altitude and water-bourne
intruders, those RF sources become a big headache that the system
wasn't designed to handle.

Gee... Thinking about it some. All Abdulah (or Ivan or whoever)
needs to do is buy a 440 rig, an amp and a yagi and go out as a
"rover"; 3 or 4 kW ERP down the bear's craw for a while then move.

Maybe. But the result would probably be just the opposite: firing up
that setup would announce his exact bearing and altitude. IOW,
announcing "HERE I AM" to the radar system. With no legitimate sources
of RF in the area, and no "shadows" to hide behind, finding the
intruder would be easier and faster.

This sort of thing isn't new. When you don't know the exact threat,
you try to plug every possible hole.

Way back in WW2, the Allies spent a lot of time and expense developing
receivers that had extremely low local-oscillator radiation. Only
approved receivers could be used aboard Allied vessels. The concern
was that enemy U-boats could detect and find Allied convoys by
listening for the local-oscillator radiation. When you have dozens of
ships all monitoring the same frequency using big antennas and
unshielded receivers, the total LO radiation could be heard a long way
off. And while radio silence could be maintained in a convoy most of
the time, the receivers were needed for weather reports, U-boat
warnings, distress calls and such.

It turned out that the U-boats did not listen for the LO radiation
after all. But this was not known until after the war.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:03:17 EDT, wrote:

Remember that the radar system in question is probably being used in
roles it was not originally designed for. That's probably why the
problem didn't show up before.

I haven't chimed in because I had a foot on both camps, so to speak.
The problem is not new, and was handled on a case-by-case basis until
it became a "real big" problem when the system was upgraded. Most if
not all of the ham repeaters which fall in the "circle of interest"
for the Beale AFB site were in my District (San Francisco) and I
knew/know several of the repeater owners personally.

A practical example of the problem in the non-military world: One
would have problems using the usual consumer type in-line cable
amplified splitter with a VHF/UHF receiver such as a scanner because
the receiver deals in signals of the order of 0.5 uV or less while the
amplifier is designed to deal with signals in the order of 1 mV or
more and consequently the noise floor is much higher.

Whether the contractor(s) designing the system and/or running the
tests are competent or not is an exercise left for the reader.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:05:11 EDT, wrote:


I think the equipment flow was both an incentive for the volunteers
and a recruiting tool. It certainly was better than simply scrapping
older stuff, or getting a few pennies per pound in surplus.

I am told by a ranking MARS member that the loan/giveaway program
stopped many years ago. We used to see a lot of military surplus gear
on the market even up into the late 1950s - I remember the ARC-5 stuff
that you and I got started with, and the surplus tank low-band FM
receiver that I had for monitoring the Sheriff and the Highway Patrol
before crystallized receivers and scanners became consumer items --
but that's all history now. Post-Korean War stuff never hit the
market.

I am told that what the military doesn't give/sell/loan to foreign
governments and even our own National Guard is scrapped (i.e. crushed
beyond usefulness) , no doubt due to the pressure of the equipment
manufacturers (yes, there are still quite a few left in the USA) who
are more than happy to sell new stuff to amateur and commercial users
alike at listed prices.

There was also the influence of well-known amateurs such as Gen.
Curtis LeMay, Barry Goldwater, Art Collins and even Arthur Godfrey.

Ah yes, the legendary Friday-night Poker School.... (I'm still a
member of the SAC Memorial ARC, as are several others in this group).
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On May 5, 8:04Â pm, wrote:
On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case.

Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
is used in the US military.

That "case" might have been valid prior to WWII but that time
period was 67 and more years ago.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

I would suggest you borrow a 'communications receiver' that can
tune in the HF spectrum OTHER than amateur radio band allocations.

For one thing, the US military had all but abandoned morse code
mode before 1953 for any mass-volume messaging connecting North
America to military bases around the rest of the world.

For another thing, the US military has abandoned HF for any mass-
volume messaging and now uses secure military communications
satellites, troposcatter, and the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
for 24/7 communications. DSN has very robust security and is the
major system of 'flash' alerts to land bases. Alerts for
submarines (to listen to HF thru microwaves for the main message)
are slow-speed encrypted data at VLF that can be received while
submerged. The US military still keeps HF radios on a standby
basis but only uses them for periodic operational checks. MARS
is not a part of the daily US military messaging routine, although
it is much closer to the use of operations protocol than amateurs.

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!

Please define "extensively" (with or without exclamation mark).

No one has stated or implied that amateur use of morse code was
not "extensive." In an unofficial poll at the ARRL website some
time ago, #1 communications mode on amateur bands was voice.

MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

Military Affiliate Radio System mission was changed about five
years ago to act in accord with other US government agencies to
(ostensibly) link them together. Army MARS Hq is at Fort
Huachuca, AZ, the same military base that houses the Army
Military Intelligence training facilities.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses.

That is not true. For routine tactical or strategic communications
the US military has abandoned morse code.

The M.I. school at Fort Huachuca still trains some in morse code
signal intercept analysis but that is NOT communications per se.
To attempt stating that SIGINT operations "use morse code" is like
saying the Army still uses muskets and Revolutionary War uniforms
because one Army unit in Washington, DC, has them for ceremonial
duties.

That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.

Morse code was used "extensively" in World War ONE. In that 1914
to 1918 period voice communications was relegated to wireline
communications circuits. Teleprinter circuits had already been
established before the US entry into WWII, including its use on
USN ships (see the 'SIGABA' descriptions on various websites for
online encryption capability over teleprinter as early as 1940).

As a soldier during and just after the Korean War, doing mass-
volume communications via HF, I can assure you that morse code
was NOT used for such communications about logistics or military
planning plus (in a secondary basis) broadcasting news and
'health and welfare' messages carried for the Red Cross and
other agencies to military members.

The vast majority of communications carried on during the
recognized active period of US involvement in Vietnam was voice
and teleprinter. Like the Korean War, the Vietnam War was not
a 'true' war yet service members were killed or wounded as a
part of that actual warfare.

During the prosecution of the Korean War, the US military
routinely handled about a quarter million messages a month
through military facilities. That was nearly doubled for the
Vietnam War. Morse code communications MIGHT have been used
in rare instances for both wars but its role was so minor as
to be discounted compared to the MASS of messaging needed to
maintain troops and equipment far from the USA.

All of that military communications information is public and
available to anyone who cares to look for it. I would suggest
the U.S. Army Center For Military History as a starting point
for very detailed historical accounts of the US Army since the
Revolutionary War.

But that doesn't mean hams should stop using Morse Code.

NOBODY has said "hams should stop using" it. Please try to
restrain generating another sub-thread about it. Please try
to educate yourself about radio uses outside of amateur radio
as described other than the ARRL publications or website.

In order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, I would suggest channeling
your promotion OUTSIDE of amateur radio venues. The general
public and lawmakers don't much look into ham radio venues.

AF6AY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
:
,
: typed, for some strange, unexplained
: reason:
: : Secondary status means no interference need be
: : tolerated by the primary.
:
: I should have been more clear, and qualfied the above as "here in the
: USA"

I guessed that ;-)

: Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't
: complain about interference.
:
: : There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due
: : to the possibility of interference to radar.
:
: Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.
:
: It was a US restriction a long time ago.

Ok, thought I'd never heard of it.

: : It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: : be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
: :
: : That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users
: : of a band have to put up with interference from secondary users.
:
: Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs
: have to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.
:
: Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary users of
: 420-450 MHz.
: So while we can complain, we don't have the same "standing", as it
: were.

Well of course we can complain, but nobody will take any notice..!

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 6, 12:54�am, Bill Horne wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

As a veteran of the US Army Signal Corps 1952 to 1960 and as an
engineer who has been involved in DoD electronics during my
civilian career, I've seen NO evidence that US amateur radio
was ever in some "favorite son" status in the US military.

The ham who gave me my novice exam, WA1BGR (SK), had a 10 KW generator
in his backyard that he received from Air Force surplus via MARS. Not
your $2,000.00 toilet seat, to be sure, but certainly a step up from the
equipment available to the average ham, especially in 1964 New
Hampshire, where power failures were a regular event. Would you be more
comfortable if I said "poor relation" instead?

In 2004 electric power failures in western Washington state were a
regular event. All rural homes in Kitsap County, WA, have fireplaces
and stacks of wood outside for that...despite electric power rates
there being among the lowest in the USA.



The fact is that equipment and expertise flowed from the military to the
hams who were willing to work for it. That couldn't have happened by
accident, and I don't believe it was an accident that ham allocations in
shortwave bands survived during the era before geostationary satellites,
when there was pressure from other governments and from corporate users
here to carve out larger portions for broadcasting or commercial use.

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could be
pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

Perhaps this was true in 1941. �It was NOT true in 1952 when I
voluntarily entered US Army service (during the Korean War active
phase), trained at the Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ, and
subsequently assigned to long-distance, high-volume message
traffic handling on a 24/7 basis at a Far East Command Hq
station in Tokyo. �

Welcome Home.

There is no need for sarcasm. I returned to the States in 1956.
The active phase of the Korean War stopped in June of 1953.
['truce talks' continue to this day in Korea along the DMZ]
The Vietnam War ended for the USA 35 years ago.

I would reply to more of your message but Google doesn't like it or
something.

AF6AY

In ,
AF6AY typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 5, 8:04 pm, wrote:
: On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case.
:
: Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
: is used in the US military.

[snip]

Well, I seem to have sparked quite a debate..!

However, a lot of it seems to have gone more than a little OT (which
doesn't surprise me and is actually quite interesting, so don't consider
it a moan..!)

But.. what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood, that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

73 Ivor G6URP