Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|