|
Fifth pillar
Quoting from an ARRL news release
... On Saturday, May 17 at the Dayton Hamvention, ARRL President ... Joel Harrison, W5NZ, plans to announce that the League will expand ... its identity program to include greater emphasis on technology. ... Harrison explained that "Ham radio operators, and particularly ... ARRL members, closely identify with current and emerging radio ... technology. Today, we are naming 'technology' as ARRL's new ... fifth pillar." If ARRL will put enough weight into this idea that it can gain traction, I feel this may be the key to a renewed health for our hobby. What can we do to help? -- 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Homepage: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm |
Fifth pillar
KØHB wrote:
Quoting from an ARRL news release .. On Saturday, May 17 at the Dayton Hamvention, ARRL President .. Joel Harrison, W5NZ, plans to announce that the League will expand .. its identity program to include greater emphasis on technology. .. Harrison explained that "Ham radio operators, and particularly .. ARRL members, closely identify with current and emerging radio .. technology. Today, we are naming 'technology' as ARRL's new .. fifth pillar." If ARRL will put enough weight into this idea that it can gain traction, I feel this may be the key to a renewed health for our hobby. I think this is a good idea. I'm not so sure that Amateur Radio is unhealthy though. What can we do to help? I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just technology for it's own sake. Good technology: Getting more people on narrow digital modes. I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT, and the cost of charging batteries. Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is still being produced As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price point is advised. Keep on moving with the computer enhanced stuff. Technology that is so-so. I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath. Isn't as much of a problem for old school FM. Also while I like the idea of sending data, I think that digital voice is kind of underwhelming, unless we subscribe to the view that "it's digital - It's better". D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing repeaters, and maybe some initial users getting some help. Otherwise people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater) might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
On May 19, 7:13 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just technology for it's own sake. "Relevant" is a moving target, Mike. I think we should encourage technology "just for it's own sake". Some percentage (invariably a LARGE percentage) mosly likely will end up no more than a technical curiousity (for the moment, anyhow). But if ARRL can light a technological campfire for us to gather round, even small percentages of PBI's maturing will justify the effort. Good technology: Getting more people on narrow digital modes. I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT, and the cost of charging batteries. Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is still being produced None of that is new technology, Mike, just "more of the same old stuff in a different sack". "Texting" and "cameras in an HT" are mass marketed by the millions and already owned by every bubble-gummer in the country who has access to a cheap cell phone! As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price point is advised. Hopefully this new "pillar" isn't about hints to manufacturers defining their product offerings, but about fostering an amateur radio environment which breeds a spirit of experimentation and tinkering among amateur licensees. I want to see more pages of ham-authored articles in QEX, not more commercial advertising in QST. Hopefully this new "pillar" is about petitions to FCC to loosen up our spectrum to new modes and techniques. Back when ARRL/FCC were haggling about how to refarm the so-called "Novice bands", I suggested that they be set up as experimental reservations where forward looking amateurs would be encouraged to try new or unconventional technologies. Instead, FCC copped out and just shuffled some mode-boundaries around. What an opportunity lost! Perhaps it's time to send a new copy of my remarks to FCC. See below. 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10413 Amateur Service Rules Governing ) Operating Privileges ) ) PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are in response to the ARRL proposal for "refarming" the existing HF "Novice sub-bands". I. Discussion: The ARRL petition does not address the implementation of new technologies as repeatedly requested by the Commission in WT Docket 98-143. It simply proposes to eliminate the Novice segments and reshuffle that spectrum among existing legacy modes. Rather than gain consensus, the ARRL polling method produced a popularity poll among several non-responsive (to 98-143) choices. Rather than just "more of the same old stuff", I propose that the Commission take this opportunity to provide the Amateur Radio service with a new incentive to concentrate on paragraph 97.1(b) of the Commission's Rules. 97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. While I agree that the declining Novice license population no longer justifies several significant chunks of spectrum as a "reservation" for improving their Morse skills, and that these "reservations" have outlived their regulatory purpose, I propose that we retain these 50-year old "reservations" and convert them to a new purpose which will ensure the future Amateur Radio service continues our "proven ability to contribute to the advancement". II Proposal: A. To "de-populate" the current Novice segments, I propose that all Novice (and Technician with code credit) licensees be authorized to use Morse code in the same band segments now authorized for General class licensees. B. I propose that the current Novice sub-bands be set aside as a new "Experimental Reservation" for non-traditional and experimental modes such as digitized voice, digitized image, and other "forward looking" communications methods. C. I propose that the current power output level of 200W be retained for those segments, and additionally propose that transmitters in those segments must be equipped with auto-adaptive circuitry to reduce output to the lowest level consistent with reliable communications. D. I recommend that the Commission grant broad discretion to amateurs operating in this "experimental reservation" as to innovative modulation schemes and non-traditional technologies. Respectfully, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB |
Fifth pillar
KØHB wrote:
On May 19, 7:13 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just technology for it's own sake. "Relevant" is a moving target, Mike. I think we should encourage technology "just for it's own sake". Keeping in mind that some technology is a dead end. Some percentage (invariably a LARGE percentage) mosly likely will end up no more than a technical curiousity (for the moment, anyhow). But if ARRL can light a technological campfire for us to gather round, even small percentages of PBI's maturing will justify the effort. Good technology: Getting more people on narrow digital modes. I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT, and the cost of charging batteries. Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is still being produced None of that is new technology, Mike, just "more of the same old stuff in a different sack". "Texting" and "cameras in an HT" are mass marketed by the millions and already owned by every bubble-gummer in the country who has access to a cheap cell phone! So much of what we use is not terribly new. Certainly SSB was around a long time before Amateurs adopted it in large numbers. Technology is not just about what is cutting edge, but is often about can be done efficiently and at a good cost. While PSK has been around for a while, availability of computers/soundcards/software to allow Hams to experiment with it was critical to having many adopt it. As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price point is advised. Hopefully this new "pillar" isn't about hints to manufacturers defining their product offerings, but about fostering an amateur radio environment which breeds a spirit of experimentation and tinkering among amateur licensees. I want to see more pages of ham-authored articles in QEX, not more commercial advertising in QST. The RF world is fairly mature at this point. (please no comparisons to that physicist who said "everything is known") The earth shaking developments tend to come a little further apart these days. I would guess that most new innovations will be incremental, though it would be cool to be proven incorrect on that. I just don't know how many fundamental breakthroughs will be made by some Ham working in his or her garage. More to the point in my mature technology outlook is that when something gets to that point, much of the research and innovation needs a fair amount of money put into it to get very far. Hopefully this new "pillar" is about petitions to FCC to loosen up our spectrum to new modes and techniques. Back when ARRL/FCC were haggling about how to refarm the so-called "Novice bands", I suggested that they be set up as experimental reservations where forward looking amateurs would be encouraged to try new or unconventional technologies. Instead, FCC copped out and just shuffled some mode-boundaries around. I wouldn't argue about your idea. I think it is pretty sensible. There would probably be a lot of hand wringing about it by some folk, I suspect. - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: I still want a PSK31 HT. My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and well-defined. A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at PSK31. Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters? Who is going to develop the technology to determine that a PSK31 signal that is 100Hz off the correct frequency should be digipeated while one that is 50Hz off should not? (1kHz error in an FM HT is common. 1kHz error in PSK31 is a completely different QSO.) Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is still being produced Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud? As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price point is advised. Volume means low price. High price means no volume. Yeah, a $100 SDR HT would be great. It also has more than $100 of parts in it. That $0.10 diode detector is replaced by a $30 DSP chip. I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath. But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31 texting, good? D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing repeaters, Sorry, but at $10,000 starting, our emergency group isn't going to be buying one. The fact we have no open repeater space, and the cost of a D-STAR radio, makes it certain that D-STAR is a non-starter here. people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater) might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends. I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me, one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks". |
Fifth pillar
On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:26 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing repeaters, and maybe some initial users getting some help. Otherwise people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater) might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends. The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. It's being pushed by several folks who got either ICOM or the State or both to subsidize their personal D-Star radios and/or are "blessed with resources" to get one on their own. Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my "grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't. Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar. My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Fifth pillar
Phil Kane wrote:
. . . Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my "grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't. Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar. My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant.... My misgivings in this area are related more to the complexity of the technology, although the cost is certainly a consideration. My experience in real disaster situations suggests that simple is better and that much of the reason to have amateur radio participation is tied to the simplicity of the gear that we use. The reason we're there in the first place is that the commercial infrastructure isn't functioning. Tying our operations to high-tech equipment puts us in the same realm as what we're there to replace. My experience also suggests that it's more the human factor than the equipment factor that makes us valuable in a disaster operation. The training and experience that the human has is much more important than what kind of equipment is in use. I suppose that the response to this is that the best of all worlds is a trained cadre of operators using the best state-of-the-art equipment available. In theory this is correct, but in the real world of an actual disaster operation things might be a lot different. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo wrote: I still want a PSK31 HT. My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and well-defined. APRS texting isn't terribly convenient, and you have to put up with the rest of the squacking to get it. A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at PSK31. I'm not talking about sending data, or long messages, just ones similar to what is sent in cell phone text messages. This is about getting people interested and using Ham radio. It isn't necessarily about getting something that you or even I would buy. Younger folks, high school kids, would likely buy into something like that. Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters? What I envision would be likely simplex. Although a repeater could come into the picture somewhere, it wouldn't need to be a digipeater. Who is going to develop the technology to determine that a PSK31 signal that is 100Hz off the correct frequency should be digipeated while one that is 50Hz off should not? (1kHz error in an FM HT is common. 1kHz error in PSK31 is a completely different QSO.) These are all pretty minor technical problems. I imagine that a person might be able to differentiate between signals in an old school manner, by tuning them in. Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is still being produced Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud? I've sent SSTV images in a fairly short time. They aren't large images, but along with the texting I speak of, make a fun little gadget for people to play with. Might even be of some emergency use. I have to say that I probably would never buy such a device. That doesn't make it a dumb idea though. If there was one thing I would like to counsel Hams on , it is the idea that whatever you or I are into at the moment is not what everyone is into, and it shouldn't be either. Some modes such as IRLP or Echolink, I don't even consider "radio", but hey, a lot of people like them a lot, so I won't argue. As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price point is advised. Volume means low price. High price means no volume. Yeah, a $100 SDR HT would be great. It also has more than $100 of parts in it. That $0.10 diode detector is replaced by a $30 DSP chip. I've seen a lot about the new Digital voice and data modes such as D-Star. Lots of investment needed there, and although the transmission of data is kinda cool, I have concerns about multipath. But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31 texting, good? I don't declare D-Star Texting "bad", but I do declare the PSK31 texting pretty darn good. PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is quite proprietary. Wanna use D-Star? Get out the plastic and go without something else for a couple years. D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing repeaters, Sorry, but at $10,000 starting, our emergency group isn't going to be buying one. The fact we have no open repeater space, and the cost of a D-STAR radio, makes it certain that D-STAR is a non-starter here. I think that what would be needed is for local governments to do the actual purchasing, then hand it over to the Hams. The Hams are going to have to have regular access to the D-Star repeater, or else they won't buy-in. My honest opinion however is that this is one of those technology solutions that just add too much technology to the mix. One of the big complaints from emergency responders is that they can't talk to each other. This is due to the introduction of too much structure upon the system. With D Star, we do the same thing with Hams. people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater) might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends. I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me, one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks". Yup. And the big problem as far as Amateurs go is that they can't get into the system. Whereas you or I can build a CW, SSB, FM, or PSK31 radio for most any application we'd like, we can't do that with D-Star. So unless those prices come waaaay down, D-Star is going to be a very low volume mode, probably used only by emergency groups. Of course if that is the case, they shouldn't be operating it on the Amateur bands, because they can get more use out of it on their own frequencies, which won't have Amateur reestrictions. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
My experience also suggests that it's more the human factor than the equipment factor that makes us valuable in a disaster operation. The training and experience that the human has is much more important than what kind of equipment is in use. I suppose that the response to this is that the best of all worlds is a trained cadre of operators using the best state-of-the-art equipment available. In theory this is correct, but in the real world of an actual disaster operation things might be a lot different. 73, Steve KB9X I know of a number of members of ARES and clubs wanting to be setup with all kinds of high-tech communications in case of emergency. I have also noticed that in most cases, while they receive lots of verbal support and volunteers, they end up in the exercises with a severe shortage of operators. I volunteered in the aftermath of Hurricanes Hugo and Frances and many very localized disasters. Locals aren't available in the aftermath of area-wide disasters and in local emergencies, often comm needs require multiple repeaters or very many HT communications. In the early days of Amateur Radio, "High Tech" meant communicating without wires and homing pigeons. The important thing is timely and accurate communications. today's "High-tech" can help, but the important thing is " any means necessary". Buck N4PGW |
Fifth pillar
Phil Kane wrote:
The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. It's being pushed by several folks who got either ICOM or the State or both to subsidize their personal D-Star radios and/or are "blessed with resources" to get one on their own. Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my "grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't. My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant.... Unfortunately, it's how they think. One of my old chestnuts is that the reason that Ham radio is often the only thing working when the wheels fall off is that: 1.Our organization is ad-hoc. Lots of people who know how to communicate, but are not within some strict hierarchy. 2.We have equipment that will talk to our equipment. Now sometimes that means that we're using old school SSB or FM or CW. That's bad? No that's good! The idea is to pass the message, not to sit in the seat and feel really great about the whiz-bang technology we're using. 3.We know how to get the messages across. There is something to be said about understanding propagation. Going to send a message on 20 meters to someone 100 miles away? 40 meters at night? How about 50 miles away on 440 simplex? A little bit of knowledge is pretty handy. Now what I see is the folk who would have us help when disaster strikes have noted that we seem to pull rabbits out of our hat, and they like what they see. But as people who impress a hierarchy, organization, and levels of technology on everything they touch, now want to do the same to us. After Katrina, I was kind of shocked by all the "This is what you Amateurs Have To Do" articles and speeches. And each article had a common thread - we amateurs had to become more like the people who experienced failure. Just didn't make sense. And yet they can't seem to figure out why their systems fail when it all falls apart. My guess is that we will be looking at more technology impressed on the system. And it will probably fail too. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. No, they are not. The ICOM radios can have the D-Star option added at local expense. Neither the 2820 nor the 2200 have D-Star built in. There certainly is no D-Star repeater support. Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar. The pactor is intended primarilly for county to state communication, not user to user. |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: Mark Kramer wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: I still want a PSK31 HT. My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and well-defined. APRS texting isn't terribly convenient, That's a user-interface issue, not a technology issue. I could write software tomorrow that hooks my D700 up and sends APRS text as easily as email, if someone hasn't already. I've seen aftermarket keyboards for the D700 to do this. and you have to put up with the rest of the squacking to get it. I have no idea what you mean by this. You aren't going to listen to the PSK31 audio any more than you have to listen to the APRS audio when using it. A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at PSK31. I'm not talking about sending data, or long messages, just ones similar to what is sent in cell phone text messages. "Cell phone text messages" are "data". Two seconds of 1200 baud packet can send more "cell phone text" than more than 50 seconds of PSK31. If people had to wait a minute for their SMS text messages to be sent instead of the few seconds it does, they'd be less likely to use it. This is about getting people interested and using Ham radio. We HAVE the technology in place that is better than that proposed as the salvation of amateur radio. No, a PSK31 HT isn't going to do anything to support the hobby or bring new people in that APRS HTs haven't already done. A PSK31 HT is an interesting concept; difficult product. It isn't necessarily about getting something that you or even I would buy. If nobody buys it, then it won't ever be cheap. If WE, the existing amateur base doesn't support it, it ain't gonna happen. Voice HTs work because there is an existing repeater infrastructure. APRS HTs work only because there is an existing APRS network infrastructure. If there is no VHF PSK31 infrastructure, it isn't going to be used. Younger folks, high school kids, would likely buy into something like that. No "younger folks" are going to buy a new technology where there is no infrastructure to support them. Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters? What I envision would be likely simplex. The range of a PSK31 HT would be very short. FRS distances, at best. It would be extremely sensitive to antenna orientation. You couldn't load a message and then put the HT back on your belt while it takes a minute to send. Who is going to pay several hundred dollars for an HT that can only communicate three blocks in a city? Although a repeater could come into the picture somewhere, it wouldn't need to be a digipeater. PSK31 is a DIGITAL mode. Repeaters for digital data are ofen called digipeaters. WHO is going to install these repeaters? You can't use the existing ones -- PSK31 is narrowband FSK, existing repeaters are relatively wideband FM. If you are going to use an entire FM voice channel bandwidth, you might as well use standard 1200 baud packet and APRS. Existing technology. Where are all the youngsters using APRS messaging? Why do you believe they would flock to a slower, shorter range system? These are all pretty minor technical problems. I imagine that a person might be able to differentiate between signals in an old school manner, by tuning them in. A PERSON might be able to, but a DIGIPEATER is not a person. And these YOUNG PEOPLE you want to lure into the hobby with a PSK31 HT aren't going to want to have to tune around hoping to be on the right frequency when their friends send them messages. It's got to be channelized to make it simple. An HT that's off channel by as little as 100Hz for PSK31 is a different channel. That's REALLY tight technical standards for amateur gear. Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud? I've sent SSTV images in a fairly short time. They aren't large images, They are also not PSK31 data. Entirely different mode. I have to say that I probably would never buy such a device. That doesn't make it a dumb idea though. No, the technical issues do, and expecting it to bring lots of new people into the hobby as something similar to SMS text messaging is silly. We have better technology already in our hands; where are the people? But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31 texting, good? I don't declare D-Star Texting "bad", but I do declare the PSK31 texting pretty darn good. In it's place, perhaps. Sitting in a radio shack with a $1000 HF radio and a computer to decode it, yes. In an HT, no. PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is quite proprietary. No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard. Wanna use D-Star? Get out the plastic and go without something else for a couple years. Yes. Want a usable PSK31 HT? Go without something else for many years. I think that what would be needed is for local governments to do the actual purchasing, then hand it over to the Hams. Wow. The Hams are going to have to have regular access to the D-Star repeater, or else they won't buy-in. The hams are going to have to have a lot of MONEY to have regular access to any D-Star repeater. My honest opinion however is that this is one of those technology solutions that just add too much technology to the mix. One of the big complaints from emergency responders is that they can't talk to each other. This is due to the introduction of too much structure upon the system. This is due to licensing limitations that prevent LMR radios from being fully and easily programmable in the field. With D Star, we do the same thing with Hams. I know of no D-Star radio which is not fully field programmable. I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me, one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks". Yup. And the big problem as far as Amateurs go is that they can't get into the system. I have no idea what you mean by this. What "system" can they not get into? Whereas you or I can build a CW, SSB, FM, or PSK31 radio for most any application we'd like, we can't do that with D-Star. So what? Most people cannot build even a CW transmitter, much less a PSK31 system. Have YOU built your own PC to run the PSK31 software yet? I doubt it. So unless those prices come waaaay down, D-Star is going to be a very low volume mode, probably used only by emergency groups. Of course if that is the case, they shouldn't be operating it on the Amateur bands, because they can get more use out of it on their own frequencies, I'm sorry. Exactly what frequencies do ARES groups have that aren't part of the Amateur Radio Service? How do I legally put an amateur certificated repeater on to a public-service frequency? which won't have Amateur reestrictions. Amateur restrictions are trivial compared to LMR. Nobody is demanding that we all cut our bandwidth and channel spacings in half by 2013, e.g.. Our licenses don't come with a list of specific frequencies we can use. |
Fifth pillar
Mark Kramer wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is quite proprietary. No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard. I respectfully disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-STAR to quote the relevant part: "D-STAR has been criticized for its use of a patented, closed-source proprietary voice codec (AMBE). [4] Hams do not have access to the detailed specification of this codec or the rights to implement it on their own without buying a licensed product. Hams have a long tradition of building, improving upon and experimenting with their own radio designs. The modern digital age equivalent of this would be designing and/or implementing codecs in software. Critics say the proprietary nature of AMBE and its availability only in hardware form (as ICs) discourages innovation." end quote Wow. Understood. I'll skip most of the post because I'm not looking for a sentence by sentence rebuke here. Let's just take it that you don't like my ideas, and we'll move on. My thoughts are that having some sort of device that young people can use to communicate with each other, in a manner such are they are used to, such as texting, might just be a good thing. Add a couple more friends, and you have a VHF chat room. No need for repeaters, no need to intrude on other people's BW. The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too many people get caught up in that. It is an application of available technology in a way that some folk might not see as useful, but others might. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
On May 23, 12:11 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
My thoughts are that having some sort of device that young people can use to communicate with each other, in a manner such are they are used to, such as texting, might just be a good thing. The operative word there, IMHO, is "might". Add a couple more friends, and you have a VHF chat room. No need for repeaters, no need to intrude on other people's BW. The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too many people get caught up in that. It is an application of available technology in a way that some folk might not see as useful, but others might. The Big Problem I see is that ham radio will never be competitive in areas where there is a similar mainstream/commercial alternative. IOW, why would any non-ham with a cell phone that can text want a ham-radio text-message device? Where ham radio has always been a success is in offering things that are *not* available anywhere else. For example, in the days before cell phones, repeaters and autopatch were a big deal because they offered communications that the average person could not get any other way. This doesn't mean I'm against anyone building whatever kind of ham rig strikes their fancy, as long as it meets Part 97 rules. All I'm saying is "do what interests you, don't expect it to attract a certain demographic". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Fifth pillar
|
Fifth pillar
On May 23, 8:41�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
�Before ham autopatches were popular on repeaters, the telcos - both wireline and non-wireline - offered Mobile Telephone Service (MTS) �using mobile operators and Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS) permitting subscriber dial. �Expensive - you bet - but they were available to the average person. Right you are, Phil! I should have noted that while such services existed, their cost was such that most "average people" could not afford them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Fifth pillar
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too many people get caught up in that. One of the bedrock notions of Amateur Radio is for licensees to "get caught up in" the advancement of the radio art. In my opinion, too FEW are "caught up in that". Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose" 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder |
Fifth pillar
Phil Kane wrote:
Oh? Before ham autopatches were popular on repeaters, the telcos - both wireline and non-wireline - offered Mobile Telephone Service (MTS) using mobile operators and Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS) permitting subscriber dial. Expensive - you bet - but they were available to the average person. Some of those transceivers found their way into the ham market after the telcos upgraded to newer stuff. Actually, the "supply" of (pre-cellular) mobile phone service was grossly inadequate to meet the demand for it. That is what drove the development of cellular phones. Even the owners of the limos in which it was installed often complained of having to wait 15 minutes or more to get a dial tone. (You will recall that that service used the 150 MHz band and there was no law against monitoring it. This was pre-Electronic Communications Privacy Act.) -- Klystron |
Fifth pillar
On Fri, 23 May 2008 22:58:55 EDT, "KØHB"
wrote: Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose" Neither is contesting or DXpeditions but we do that and look forward to more of the same as part of the "real" ham radio experience. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Fifth pillar
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too many people get caught up in that. One of the bedrock notions of Amateur Radio is for licensees to "get ca ught up in" the advancement of the radio art. In my opinion, too FEW are "caught up in that". Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose" Spread-spectrum, digital modes, moonbounce . . . none of these are mentioned in "Basis and purpose". I don't see any conflict between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and "forge new technology". In fact, I see a lot of similarity between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and the groups that have been squatting on the same frequency on 75 meters for 40 years and complain of interference, even though there's lots of unused newly-allocated space. Some of those younger hams contribute a lot to our hobby, and I wish we could figure out ways to attract more of them. Maybe a good start would be to recognize their potential and quit using derogatory terms to describe them. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
Steve Bonine wrote in
m: KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too many people get caught up in that. One of the bedrock notions of Amateur Radio is for licensees to "get ca ught up in" the advancement of the radio art. In my opinion, too FEW are "caught up in that". Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose" Spread-spectrum, digital modes, moonbounce . . . none of these are mentioned in "Basis and purpose". I don't see any conflict between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and "forge new technology". In fact, I see a lot of similarity between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and the groups that have been squatting on the same frequency on 75 meters for 40 years and complain of interference, even though there's lots of unused newly-allocated space. Some of those younger hams contribute a lot to our hobby, and I wish we could figure out ways to attract more of them. Maybe a good start would be to recognize their potential and quit using derogatory terms to describe them. Hear Hear, Steve! I would respectfully suggest that we as hams give a little thought as to whether or not we actually want young folk in the hobby. This is beyond the simple statements such as "we need more young people in the hobby". Probelem as I see it is that while we might sayt that, alll too many of us have an implied addidition to that of "As long as they are exactly as we are. And the problem is, "we" is an interesting one word. I know many hams who are surrounded with like minded people, other Hams who share similar interests. They have an outlook in which they think everyone is like them, or at least everyone should be. Those who do not share their outlook are inferior, or at best misinformed. Strangely enough, many of these hams were licensed at a very young age. What happened? I don't really know, but I suspect that there were some old timers who just couldn't stand those young hams of yesteryear, too. I'll bet they had names to call them. related story When I was a wee lad, after a lot of bugging, My parents bought me a CB Walkie-talkie one Christmas. The other one of a set was bought by my cousin's parents. About 0600 Christmas morning, I went outside and called "anybody listening?". Bam, my cousin called back from a couple miles away. I was hooked. Fast forward to about 6 months later. A friend and I tried to join a CB club. Wow, what a mistake! After a little talk among the members, we were told we couldn't join, and they would appreciate it if we left immediately. That left an impression. To this day, I have a problem with superior people. But I bet they were pretty happy they got rid of us. Fast forward to today. Kids are a little different, but are still kids. They do some different things than we do. One of those things is they way they interact with each other. If we declare them jerks, then we've lost them. If we even don't say it, yet have that attitude, they'll sense it and find something else to do. Then we've lost them. I've been kind of surprised by the negative reaction to my texting HT. This device is not aimed at "us", it is aimed at a new generation for whom texting is as natural as talking to another. Maybe today's hams don't want young people to get licenses. That's okay, that is a valid opinion. But I would respectfully suggest that getting the young folk involved will take a different tactic than the way many of us became inolved. I think we should give that some consideration. I'm bowing out of this thread now. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
|
Fifth pillar
|
Fifth pillar
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 6... I would respectfully suggest that we as hams give a little thought as to whether or not we actually want young folk in the hobby. Here's my reaction to that. I want more new people in the Amateur Radio service with new ideas. Their birthdate is of no particular interest to me. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Fifth pillar
|
Fifth pillar
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message m... Spread-spectrum, digital modes, moonbounce . . . none of these are mentioned in "Basis and purpose". Of course they are, Steve, in §97.1(b). In fact, I see a lot of similarity between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and the groups that have been squatting on the same frequency on 75 meters for 40 years and complain of interference.... I agree, Steve, they sound very similar to me also. 73, de Hans, K0HB Proud Sponsor of the Amateur Blue Electric Smoke |
Fifth pillar
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6... I know many hams who are surrounded with like minded people, other Hams who share similar interests. They have an outlook in which they think everyone is like them, or at least everyone should be. Those who do not share their outlook are inferior, or at best misinformed. What's interesting to me, is the "vintage" of those "elitists". With a few exceptions they are usually not "old timers" or "newbies" but rather those licensed in the 70's through about 1988 or so. These are the ones who posture about "purity of the ham race" and look down their nose at any ham who "isn't like them". They are, by and large, products of the incentive licensing system with it's fragmentation of the hobby into exclusive ghettos, reeking of "status" and "rank" and "I can beep faster than you can beep". When I got into this hobby, you got no special call sign, no special status, no special band segments, the callbook didn't show your class, and nobody could poke around the QRZ.COM website to check your "status". All of us, ALL OF US, exuberantly played in the ether as equals, and nobody gave a rip if you were a Conditional, General, Advanced, or Extra. You were a ham - PERIOD! I think that's what makes us old-timers more accepting of those who "don't act just like us". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Fifth pillar
On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:56:17 EDT, Buck
wrote: No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard. Not proprietary? How can I get my Yaesu to work with it? Can your Yaesu do single sideband on 440 MHz? Same issue. Convince Motorola - who now owns Yaesu - to make an adapter. Up to now, no one has made and sold such things except Icom. It's not like Pactor III which is in fact proprietary and no one can make adapters except SGS, the patent-holder. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Fifth pillar
Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: I became a ham at age 13, mostly through what I learned from ARRL books. The big attraction was that Radio in general and Amateur Radio in particular looked like a lot of fun to me. And for more than 40 years, it has been. Me too. But I do think that we have increased competition these days from other outlets for prospective hams, and other things that "look like a lot of fun". Computers and such gadgets are a part of daily life for young folks these days; it's only natural that they gravitate in that direction. I suspect that the vast majority of them have not been exposed to ham radio at all. You have to admit that there were always things which looked like a lot of fun. In our day it was guitars, skateboards, stereo equipment, photography, sports and GIRLS. Not many of us were exposed to amateur radio in terms of percentages of young people. I had a good buddy when I was that age who was interested in radio and electronics, and peer pressure being what it is, I followed his lead. Those people are fewer these days. I had an old Zenith tabletop radio with shortwave which covered 5.5 to 18 MHz. I used it initially to listen to broadcast radio. Then I discovered the shortwave broadcasters and finally the 40 and 20m hams using AM. Luckily for me, I heard a ham who was in our town and he lit the fire for me. I think there is a sense that, back in the Old Days, there were young hams (high school and younger) all over the place. In my experience as a young ham (1960s-70s), however, that was not the case at all. Ham radio was a niche thing back then, same as now, even without computers, cell phones, etc. Yes, I agree. I do remember more young hams back then, though. It was mostly a hobby for older people, but I do think there were more young hams then. There were lots of young hams and young SWLs who were interested in becoming hams. They read Pop'tronics and EI. Most of the Novices I worked were in my age group. K8CFT administered Novice exams to a number of junior high and high school aged boys. At one time, the little town of Oak Hill, West Virginia (population 7,000) boasted seven young Novices along with six or seven higher class radio amateurs. Of those seven hams, five are still licensed and active. One dropped out of amateur radio and one (who was active) died last year. The key was that *we were interested*. No one can make someone spend his leisure hours doing something in which he has no interest. There were a few curmudgeons back then who had no time for young hams. But they were only a few. And a considerable number of young hams dropped out because equipment was expensive, antennas were huge compared to their houses, and/or they got interested in other things. A considerable number of old hams dropped out for similar reasons, sometimes providing a source of equipment for the new folks. Quite a number of those who were teenage hams dropped out because of their interest in girls or cars or because they went off to college and had no room for antennas and rigs or no time due to studying. Many of them returned to amateur radio. Many got married and started families and returned to ham radio. Most never left amateur radio but their activity varied. One big "hook", for me was that except for those few curmudgeons I was not treated as an inferior - particularly on the air. A big part of this was due to the mode I used - Morse Code. With Morse Code (and text modes), no one knows your age or gender unless you tell them. Operating skill, QSO content and signal quality established one's on- air reputation, not how deep or gravelly your voice was. This was a very important consideration for me, too. Even for the operation that I did on phone, by and large people treated me as an equal, and if I demonstrated skill they recognized that skill without regard to my age. Even in traditional in-person interactions like club meetings and Field Day operations, I was treated as an equal if I could demonstrate that I deserved to be treated that way. Generally speaking the local ham community was eager to reach out and teach me if it was obvious that I needed teaching. In my first few years there was no real ham community in my area. I depended upon the support and largess of a number of individuals. A move to Miami in 1966 exposed me to amateur radio clubs--some of them quite large. I can't think of many areas where a young person can be treated as an equal by a banker, an attorney, a doctor, the fellow who runs the local water company or the man who operates his own gas station. I can't think of another hobby where I could have gained access to such a community of people who were often peers of my parents. Exactly. To speculate wildly, it might be that one cause for curmudgeon-ness is the fear of what advancements/accomplishments the young folks might actually make. I think you give this segment of our hobby too much credit grin. You never know when you might have a young Bill Gates visiting your amateur radio club. There are always going to be folks who simply have no social skills or prefer not to deal with "kids". There will be people who enjoy building or experimenting, but they have no desire to interact with other humans. That's their prerogative. Thankfully, most of them aren't hams. Ham radio is all about interaction with other humans. I've met a few reclusive or squirrelly or curmudgeonly radio amateurs over the years, but their number is small. It's a shame when they make newcomers feel unwelcome, but it's going to happen in any group. Other members in the group must compensate. I think that in a club situation the other members see it happening and do step in to balance things. The core value of Amateur Radio is "radio for its own sake". Some folks get that, most do not. The task is to spread that word to all, publicize the wide variety of things hams do, welcome those who are interested, and help them with what *they* find interesting. Spreading the word is more important these days than ever before. We can't expect people to become interested in something that they don't know exists. That's what I liked about the Jay Leno texting versus Morse piece of a couple of years back. It gave exposure to amateur radio in a fun way. Oddly enough, a lot of the young hams I have met are fascinated by Morse Code, simply because it is unique and outside their experience. That doesn't mean it's the only thing to show them, or that all new hams must start out one and only one way. But it does mean we cannot assume young hams are only interested in "new" things. But CW is new to them. It's different. Unique. You've got a point. Ham radio is never going to appeal to everyone. Never has; never will. The majority of people, young and old, tend to go with what has the interest of the mainstream. Hams have always been somewhat "different", and the hobby has always appealed to a segment of the population that wasn't interested in doing whatever the fashionable thing might be at the moment. When I was licensed, I was living in a remote West Virginia mountain town. Long distance telephone calls were expensive. We received three TV stations only via cable. Listening to Bruce Bradley on WABC or Dick Biondi on WLS meant contact with the rest of the world. Books brought the world to my door and amateur radio meant that I could use a rather primitive radio station in my bedroom to contact another fellow operating from his basement in France, an outbuilding in Russia or a from a stucco house in Chile. Some ideas: 1) Presentations at the middle-school and even elementary-school level - including the parents. Getting the teachers involved would be ideal. Teachers are an incredibly important influence on their students. Think back: Some kids do everything the teacher tells them. Some kids do everything except what the teacher tells them. I've had very good teachers and I've had dreadful teachers. 2) Identify local hams who are available to be Elmers. (I suspect that some of the curmudgeon-ness is due to the fear of being expected to be an Elmer). This is indeed key. It's what made the hobby so important for me as a younger ham. I'll assist any young person who wants to become a ham--as long as they don't call me an "Elmer". 3) Subtle helps to prospective young hams, such as a ride to a club meeting, Field Day or hamfest, the loan of a rig, the gift of a box of "old wire" that happens to contain all the parts needed to build an antenna, etc. And the help to actually put it together. ....and the patience to demonstrate proper operation. 4) Inclusion and acceptance. This means being considered an equal, or at least a potential equal. For example, put new hams or prospective hams to work with FD setup, logging, etc. (That means knowing how to do things the right way, though!) I do think this is the most important aspect. I'm not suggesting that we coddle people simply because they are young, or fawn over them. But we should give them the opportunity to contribute as equals, with appropriate encouragement and assistance. Breaking into the "old boys' network" can be impossible if the old boys don't make an effort to be inclusive. I think that most do make an effort to be inclusive and to show a newcomer the ropes. Some of it has to do with the old boys. Much has to do with the attitude of the newcomer. Dave K8MN |
Fifth pillar
On 2008-05-26, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:56:17 EDT, Buck wrote: No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard. Not proprietary? How can I get my Yaesu to work with it? Can your Yaesu do single sideband on 440 MHz? Same issue. Yes, just fine thanks. Convince Motorola - who now owns Yaesu - to make an adapter. Up to now, no one has made and sold such things except Icom. It's not like Pactor III which is in fact proprietary and no one can make adapters except SGS, the patent-holder. I'd prefer to make one myself, except I'd have to buy an AMBE chip from DVSI. DVSI, being the patent holders, are the only ones who can make them (without paying 6-7 figures for the license, and even then only in hardware). And that seems to me to make it just as proprietary as Pactor III. 73 de GM4FH Alexander Hamilton |
Fifth pillar
On Sun, 25 May 2008 21:41:06 EDT, Phil Kane
wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:56:17 EDT, Buck wrote: No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard. Not proprietary? How can I get my Yaesu to work with it? Can your Yaesu do single sideband on 440 MHz? Same issue. It can do all modes! |
Fifth pillar
Dave Heil wrote:
Steve Bonine wrote: wrote: I became a ham at age 13, mostly through what I learned from ARRL books. The big attraction was that Radio in general and Amateur Radio in particular looked like a lot of fun to me. And for more than 40 years, it has been. Me too. But I do think that we have increased competition these days from other outlets for prospective hams, and other things that "look like a lot of fun". Computers and such gadgets are a part of daily life for young folks these days; it's only natural that they gravitate in that direction. I suspect that the vast majority of them have not been exposed to ham radio at all. You have to admit that there were always things which looked like a lot of fun. In our day it was guitars, skateboards, stereo equipment, photography, sports and GIRLS. Not many of us were exposed to amateur radio in terms of percentages of young people. The difference is the level of exposure as a user. Today, every young person is exposed to personal computers as a user, in the same way that they are exposed to cars as a user. Most of them won't go past the level of a user, but a few will turn into gearheads or into computer geeks. I had an old Zenith tabletop radio with shortwave which covered 5.5 to 18 MHz. I used it initially to listen to broadcast radio. Then I discovered the shortwave broadcasters and finally the 40 and 20m hams using AM. Luckily for me, I heard a ham who was in our town and he lit the fire for me. That's my point. I, too, had access to a shortwave receiver and followed much the same path that you did. That's much less likely to happen today. Back then, people were exposed to radio as users. Today, they're exposed to it via cell phones but they don't perceive it as radio. Entering ham radio via the SWL route is very rare these days. There were lots of young hams and young SWLs who were interested in becoming hams. They read Pop'tronics and EI. Most of the Novices I worked were in my age group. Now that you mention it, I do remember working a lot of novices who were in my age group. There weren't that many local hams who were as young as me, but there were a lot on the air. K8CFT administered Novice exams to a number of junior high and high school aged boys. At one time, the little town of Oak Hill, West Virginia (population 7,000) boasted seven young Novices along with six or seven higher class radio amateurs. Of those seven hams, five are still licensed and active. One dropped out of amateur radio and one (who was active) died last year. The key was that *we were interested*. No one can make someone spend his leisure hours doing something in which he has no interest. Yes, but you can only be interested in something if you know it exists. If the option of finding out about ham radio via the SWL route has disappeared, how do young people find out that they have the option of spending leisure hours in ham radio? I think that the best option to attract young folks into the hobby is to expose them at school. Doing that requires teachers who are at least amenable to the idea. I suppose that getting publicity into the channels that they use could work, but I'm not sure how to do that. I'm not even sure what channels to shoot for. Another option is to attract older recruits. This has its own set of issues since someone who is busy raising a family and building a career may not have vast amounts of spare time to spend in a hobby. But for me the bottom line is that it's important to attract people into the hobby to replace the folks who are leaving. As the ham population ages and declines, it becomes more and more difficult to find a critical mass of local hams to support things like the local club, FD operations, Skywarn, and anything that's not done on the air. This problem is especially evident in rural areas that don't have a large population to draw from. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
On May 25, 5:01�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: I became a ham at age 13, mostly through what I learned from ARRL books. The big attraction was that Radio in general and Amateur Radio in particular looked like a lot of fun to me. And for more than 40 years, it has been. ..I do think that we have increased competition these days from other outlets for prospective hams, and other things that "look like a lot of fun". �Computers and such gadgets are a part of daily life for young folks these days; it's only natural that they gravitate in that direction. Those things are part of daily life for almost everyone (in developed countries) today. But amateur radio has had that sort of competition for many decades - it's nothing new. �I suspect that the vast majority of them have not been exposed to ham radio at all. IMHO, *that* is the Big Problem. I think there is a sense that, back in the Old Days, there were young hams (high school and younger) all over the place. In my experience as a young ham (1960s-70s), however, that was not the case at all. Ham radio was a niche thing back then, same as now, even without computers, cell phones, etc. Yes, I agree. �I do remember more young hams back then, though. �It was mostly a hobby for older people, but I do think there were more young hams then. Here's one data point for you: I graduated from high school in 1972. Middle class suburb of Philadelphia, emphasis was on math and science. Out of about 5000 students (boys and girls in two side-by-side schools), there were never more than a handful of hams. Less than a dozen in the four years I was there (which covers 7 graduating classes. At any one time there were no more than six hams in both schools. Operating skill, QSO content and signal quality established one's on- air reputation, not how deep or gravelly your voice was. This was a very important consideration for me, too. �Even for the operation that I did on phone, by and large people treated me as an equal, and if I demonstrated skill they recognized that skill without regard to my age. �Even in traditional in-person interactions like club meetings and Field Day operations, I was treated as an equal if I could demonstrate that I deserved to be treated that way. �Generally speaking the local ham community was eager to reach out and teach me if it was ob vious that I needed teaching. Yep. But at the same time, there had to be a willingness to learn. I can't think of another hobby where I could have gained access to such a community of people who were often peers of my parents. And on a first-name basis, too. A bank president was "Joe", a respected MD was "Bill", a highly skilled professional radio operator was "Lou". To speculate wildly, it might be that one cause for curmudgeon-ness is the fear of what advancements/accomplishments the young folks might actually make. I think you give this segment of our hobby too much credit grin. There are always going to be folks who simply have no social skills or prefer not to deal with "kids". That's true, but it's not what I was getting at. What I have seen happen more than a few times is the case of a young amateur rising through the ranks very quickly, passing older and more- experienced amateurs on the way. Not just in license class (although the "incentive licensing" changes helped that) but in things like DXCC countries, code speed, contest scores, operating skills, new technology in use, etc. While most hams are glad to see such things, I suspect that there were at least a few who did not like being bested at *anything* by young(er) folks. Particularly when it's in the area of skills. The core value of Amateur Radio is "radio for its own sake". Some folks get that, most do not. The task is to spread that word to all, publicize the wide variety of things hams do, welcome those who are interested, and help them with what *they* find interesting. Spreading the word is more important these days than ever before. �We can't expect people to become interested in something that they don't know exists. Again, that's the Big Problem. Oddly enough, a lot of the young hams I have met are fascinated by Morse Code, simply because it is unique and outside their experience. That doesn't mean it's the only thing to show them, or that all new hams must start out one and only one way. But it does mean we cannot assume young hams are only interested in "new" things. But CW is new to them. �It's different. �Unique. Yes. it's new to them. But they rapidly recognize that it's not a new technology at all. Doesn't matter; it's the uniqueness that makes it interesting. Uniqueness is a big deal to the young people I know. I clearly recall seeing the first Harry Potter book appear - and seeing it being read, in hardcover, by local kids as young as 2nd and 3rd grade. "Conventional wisdom" says that "kids today" would not read books, let alone buy them (or pester their parents to buy them), yet here they were doing just that. Because the stories are unique. Ham radio is never going to appeal to everyone. � Never has; never will. Of course. The majority of people, young and old, tend to go with what has the interest of the mainstream. �Hams have always been somewhat "different", and the hobby has always appealed to a segment of the population that wasn't interested in doing whatever the fashionable thing might be at the moment. I think it's much simpler than that. Some people like the idea of "radio for its own sake", others can't see the point. That applies to almost any voluntary activity. For example, most golfers will never play at anything like a professional level. The game takes a considerable amount of time and expense, is dependent on season and weather, and even when you play really well only a few will ever know. Yet lots of folks play, because it's not only fun but a challenge. Same for sport fishing, target shooting, running marathons, and a variety of arts and crafts done for pleasure. In all cases the journey is as important (if not more important) than the destination. 1) Presentations at the middle-school and even elementary- school level - including the parents. Getting the teachers involved would be ideal. �Teachers are an incredibly important influence on their students. Agreed! But that requires a teacher who is a ham. Scouting is perhaps the #1 source of new young hams today, btw. Particularly boys. Scouting groups are always looking for responsible adult leaders. 2) Identify local hams who are available to be Elmers. (I suspect that some of the curmudgeon-ness is due to the fear of being expected to be an Elmer). This is indeed key. �It's what made the hobby so important for me as a younger ham. 3) Subtle helps to prospective young hams, such as a ride to a club meeting, Field Day or hamfest, the loan of a rig, the gift of a box of "old wire" that happens to contain all the parts needed to build an antenna, etc. And the help to actually put it together. Sort of. A key factor is knowing just how little help to give. 4) Inclusion and acceptance. This means being considered an equal, or at least a potential equal. For example, put new hams or prospective hams to work with FD setup, logging, etc. (That means knowing how to do things the right way, though!) I do think this is the most important aspect. �I'm not suggesting that we coddle people simply because they are young, or fawn over them. �But we should give them the opportunity to contribute as equals, with appropriate encouragement and assistance. �Breaking into the "old boys' network" can be impossible if the old boys don't make an effort to be in clusive. Agreed - and that includes being willing to delegate authority. I will never forget being allowed to run the 40 meter CW setup overnight on Field Day back in 1970. I was 16, a ham for three years, and there I was with a Drake 4-line and good antenna on a hot contest band. You can bet I learned a lot that night! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Fifth pillar
|
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Derry Hamilton wrote: I'd prefer to make one myself, except I'd have to buy an AMBE chip from DVSI. I'd like to make a lot of things for myself but I have to buy patented chips from the license holders. AM radio isn't a proprietary protocol, but a lot of the parts used to make an AM radio are patented. You buy them only from people the licensee has approved. |
Fifth pillar
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article , Derry Hamilton wrote: I'd prefer to make one myself, except I'd have to buy an AMBE chip from DVSI. I'd like to make a lot of things for myself but I have to buy patented chips from the license holders. AM radio isn't a proprietary protocol, but a lot of the parts used to make an AM radio are patented. You buy them only from people the licensee has approved. Hi Mark, Could you elaborate on the relationship of electronic parts to proprietary codecs for radios? I think there is a little confusion here regarding proprietary aspects of electronics and radio concepts. Any patents held on electronic components are patents to safeguard the makers methods of making them - not the concept of the parts. The resistors, diodes and other parts are basic electronic building blocks, and anyone can make those. I could make a nicely functioning radio out of pencils, microscope slides, aluminum foil, scrap wire, an old oatmeal box, and If I really wanted to get involved, I could construct my own vacuum tubes and design and build a superheterodyne radio. As long as I built them according to my own methods, and did not infringe on the methods used by a manufacturer, not one patent, nor intellectual property would be violated. Another way of looking at this, is that I can go to the local Radio Shack, and buy a handful of components to build say, a blinking light. Maybe an IC-type 555, an op amp or two, and their needed peripheral parts. My finished device is not owned by the companies that made the parts. If it is my original design, I can claim copyright on it. Now on to the intellectual property of the D-Star codec. D-Star uses this Codec, and it is proprietary. If you do not use the Codec, you will not be able to use the D-Star repeater. If you can use the repeater, you have the Codec. This differs in many important ways from normal repeaters, and normal Codecs in use by Amateurs. Examples of non proprietary Codecs are(randomoly picked except for D-Star: SPEEX- lossy but good ro IRLP FLAC - lossless Proprietary codecs: AMBE The D Star Codec. The ramifications of using each are important. Amateur Radio has traditionally used open source whenever possible, because we also have a tradition of working on and improving those things that we work with. Examples are the PSK31 and RTTY modes. Amateurs are continually providing new and improved software for those. There are even multi PSK channel data transmission softwares out there. A lot of PSK signals fit within the bandwidth taken up by one SSB voice transmission. My experimenting with a particular PSK engine is usually based on going to the web, and downloading it. Most applications are free, but even those that have to be purchased, the whole sum is going to the developer. Hypothetically, say a group of hams came up with a digital repeater using the SPEEX Codec. (SPEEX is used for illustration purposes only, it might not be the best choice) Most of us would be able to either build or purchase an interface that would allow us to interface our radios to the computer, as software would be easily available to run them. Hand helds would be easily adaptable, as there is no specific need for a computer, just the necessary software and hardware to turn an audio stream into a digital stream, in the same manner as cell phones do (they use a different codec, but the principle is the same. I would note that there has not been a huge amount of work done by Amateurs in the VHF and up region as related to Digital voice. A lot of this can be ascribed to the fact that an SSB channel is already pretty narrow, so there aren't orders of magnitude gains to be made in conserving bandwidth. Another issue is that with digital signals, multipath can be a severe problem. Anyone who does doppler direction finding (I do) can tell you that at VHF and up, Multipath is a major problem. What might be a little whoosh or garble on FM without upsetting readability can sometimes just keep the digital system nice and quiet. Now let us turn to our D-Star equipped repeater. What will communicate with it: Icom D-Star Equipment Kenwood ( a rebranded Icom, sold only in Japan Moetronix Can hear and talk D-Star on the internet. That is a pretty short list. One for all practical purposes You buy the equipment and you use it. Do you know what the price for the AMBE Chip is in quantities of one? It may not even be realistic for an amateur to attempt to build one of their own. Mike |
Fifth pillar
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:38:13 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
Now let us turn to our D-Star equipped repeater. What will communicate with it: Icom D-Star Equipment Kenwood ( a rebranded Icom, sold only in Japan Moetronix Can hear and talk D-Star on the internet. That is a pretty short list. One for all practical purposes You buy the equipment and you use it. The "leadership" of our ARES/RACES group are D-Star fanatics. They claim, though, that the ICOM equipment does have an FM mode to pass FM signals through. I have no idea how that works (dual detection channels?). As I understood it, D-Star is a set of open protocols generated by individuals in the Japan Radio Club (or whatever the formal name is) and ICOM was the only one so far to implement them in hardware. If someone else wants to implement them, a good IP lawyer can steer them in the direction of non-infringement. A good (non-ham) friend of mine is the IP attorney for Nikon USA and he is always checking to see that the newest stuff proposed does not infringe patents by Canon and others, yet digital photography uses open standards that everyone implements in their own way. One of our club members is the author of D-Rats (that's Star spelled backwards), a set of open-source applications for functionality of D-Star radios. There's nothing proprietary about what he is doing or its applications, and he comes out with updates weekly. I'm not a software person so I can't comment on hooks and APIs and such. Hey, I would be a D-Star "nut" also were the radio fairy to deliver four dual-band mobiles and an HT on my doorstep one night. We'll leave the light on for ya'. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Fifth pillar
Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:38:13 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote: Now let us turn to our D-Star equipped repeater. What will communicate with it: Icom D-Star Equipment Kenwood ( a rebranded Icom, sold only in Japan Moetronix Can hear and talk D-Star on the internet. That is a pretty short list. One for all practical purposes You buy the equipment and you use it. The "leadership" of our ARES/RACES group are D-Star fanatics. They claim, though, that the ICOM equipment does have an FM mode to pass FM signals through. I have no idea how that works (dual detection channels?). I've looked to see if such a thing (fm voice) exists within D-Star. Could these folks steer us to some documentation? Here are the RF modules I've found: http://homepage.mac.com/rrucker/d-st...er_modules.pdf Do you know of any coordination or frequency placement issues involved with opening a presumptive FM side? You know that whole D-Star "repeater" is not a repeater issue, so frequencies are opened up for it in repeater crowded areas. Those frequencies would not be proper repeater frequencies for an FM repeater. Do you know a reference for that action Phil? I've looked a bit on the FCC site, but haven't found it yet. I think it was in 2006. As I understood it, D-Star is a set of open protocols generated by individuals in the Japan Radio Club (or whatever the formal name is) and ICOM was the only one so far to implement them in hardware. If someone else wants to implement them, a good IP lawyer can steer them in the direction of non-infringement. I would really hate to have to hire a lawyer to consult on my homebrewing... ;^) A good (non-ham) friend of mine is the IP attorney for Nikon USA and he is always checking to see that the newest stuff proposed does not infringe patents by Canon and others, yet digital photography uses open standards that everyone implements in their own way. One of our club members is the author of D-Rats (that's Star spelled backwards), a set of open-source applications for functionality of D-Star radios. There's nothing proprietary about what he is doing or its applications, and he comes out with updates weekly. I'm not a software person so I can't comment on hooks and APIs and such. Does he have a website? I'd like to take a look. Hey, I would be a D-Star "nut" also were the radio fairy to deliver four dual-band mobiles and an HT on my doorstep one night. We'll leave the light on for ya'. I'd be interested in experimenting with it. We just don't have a digital repeater for a long way around here, and the costs of putting one up just don't make it happen. It kind of reminds me of the old credit problem for young people. Need a loan? You need a good credit rating Need a good credit rating, you need to get a loan.. 8^) Like you said, if the radio fairys were to drop a system off... 8^) |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: As long as I built them according to my own methods, and did not infringe on the methods used by a manufacturer, not one patent, nor intellectual property would be violated. Yes, by definition, if you don't infringe, you haven't infringed. You can build just about anything for personal use and not infringe. D-Star uses this Codec, and it is proprietary. The digital voice part of D-Star uses a codec. The rest does not. The protocol is open and published. Certain parts used to implement the protocol are patented and sold only by a single source. When 741s were new, they were expensive and sole-sourced. If you do not use the Codec, you will not be able to use the D-Star repeater. I'm not sure you are correct about that. This differs in many important ways from normal repeaters, and normal Codecs in use by Amateurs. If you don't have an FM radio, you cannot use an FM repeater. Just as you can build your own copies of patented things for personal use, as you mentioned earlier, you can build your own copy of an AMBE codec for personal use. TI won't tell me how to build a 741 IC; AMBE is under no compulsion to tell you how to build their codec. If you buy one and reverse engineer it, that's fine -- for personal use. Amateur Radio has traditionally used open source whenever possible, Airmail and Winlink 2000 are two very large obvious counterexamples. The firmware in a KPC3+ another. The firmware in the repeater controller I had to reverse engineer to make usable, ditto. It is common for ham applications to run only on Windows -- the epitome of closed source. The control and programming software from Kenwood for the D700 is -- closed source windows only. Look around at all the Motorola gear in use in ham radio. I've yet to see an open-source version of ANY of the programs required to program a Motorola. Yes, there is open source for many things. No, it's not always used. The "tradition" is limited. Now let us turn to our D-Star equipped repeater. What will communicate with it: Icom D-Star Equipment Kenwood ( a rebranded Icom, sold only in Japan Moetronix Can hear and talk D-Star on the internet. That is a pretty short list. A very incomplete list, I believe. And, at an early stage of development, not unexpected. One for all practical purposes You buy the equipment and you use it. For all practical purposes, 2m and 440 are "you buy the equipment and you use it". I don't know many people building their own HTs, and even those that did used the Heathkits. For most commodity ham uses, homebrew is rare. Do you know what the price for the AMBE Chip is in quantities of one? About $200. It may not even be realistic for an amateur to attempt to build one of their own. The ID-1, last I looked, is $1000. About. The IC-V92AD is about $600. An SDR is on the order of $1000 and up. A lot of bleeding edge components are a bit spendy. Ham radio experimentation is a spendy hobby. |
Fifth pillar
On May 26, 9:11�pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: 1) Presentations at the middle-school and even elementary- school level - including the parents. Getting the teachers involved would be ideal. Teachers are an incredibly important influence on their students. Agreed! But that requires a teacher who is a ham. No, it doesn't. �It only requires a teacher who is open to allowin g someone to help him/her, and a person willing to help. In theory, yes, the teacher doesn't have to be a ham. But in practice, I think a teacher who was that interested in having ham radio in the school would *be* a ham, if for no other reason than it makes the whole thing easier. -- A lot depends, too, on what level of involvement ham radio is to be in the school. For example, in increasing order of involvement: 1) Books, magazines and other info on ham radio could be provided to the school libraries. 2) Local amateurs could give a presentation/demonstration at an assembly, student activity day, etc. This would simply say "Here's what ham radio is, what hams do, what it takes to become one.." etc. 3) Ham radio could be introduced as an extra-curricular activity, same as computer clubs, robotics clubs, etc. (The local high school has a computer club that focuses on rehabbing older computers for use by students who can't afford their own, and a robotics club that designs and builds machines for competition). 4) Ham radio could be part of the curriculum, integrated into the math, technology, communications and geography parts. IMHO the bell-the-cat question at all levels is: Who's going to do the work, and pay the costs? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com