Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #391   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 06:11 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep
certain values. Like old-fashioned manners,
courtesy and respect on the air. But there's
no good test for that!



I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because
they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could
clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


  #392   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 02:24 PM
Kim W5TIT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep
certain values. Like old-fashioned manners,
courtesy and respect on the air. But there's
no good test for that!



I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because
they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could
clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on the
air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the class the
majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM side of
ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate
right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have
disappeared to?

You got it: HF. They can have a lot more anonymity there, and they have
less chance of running into the same people over and over again.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to
  #393   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 03:28 PM
William H. O'Hara, III
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.

At a EMA ARES training session, the
one of the ARES officials told us
that CW should be considered for
passing of vital information solely
to keep the opsec tight.

Opsec happens to mean Operation Security.
I guess that everyone loves Delta
Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D.

At the Boston Marathon I was given
a code key for authentication purposes.

Bill
KB1IUB
  #394   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 06:07 PM
Kim W5TIT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.


With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately
coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya know
what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really good
investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above.

However, CW is definitely a practical skill, and a needed one, in EmCom.
I've never, ever disputed that. And, I encouraged openings and training for
CW whenever I have been in a position of leadership in the EmCom world.
I've also encouraged and trained with openings to HF, etc. The only thing
we never were able to accommodate is SSTV and ATV. We had every other
check-in. We would call from FM (2M *AND* 70cm) to the net participants we
knew had HF points. They would call to all net participants on all bands we
could cover at any particular training net; then those individuals would
relay to CW for any CW net participants. Then it would all be relayed back
into the 2M/70cm nets. What would have happened "in an actual emergency"
(GRIN), was all FM operations would have then become tactical with local
Emergency Services; and we--as amateur radio operators--would "set up" the
rest of the operations, as needed, for net operations.

The goal was to have all H&W set up and operating via relay (on different
freqs than the local operation freqs) from FM to HF/CW capability. We also
had PSK ops in that arena. For "relief" portions of the net (those ops that
would be looking for food and refreshment, extra batteries, more equipment,
more cars, chainsaws...what-have-you) was relayed from FM to FM capable hams
that also had FRS/GMRS, etc. They would relay those ops needs out to
non-hams (we called it the auxilliary service) and that included, by the
way, anyone who needed babysitters, animals fed, home needs. It was our
desire to have as much of the community/families involved as we
could--regardless of their amateur radio license status.


At a EMA ARES training session, the
one of the ARES officials told us
that CW should be considered for
passing of vital information solely
to keep the opsec tight.


I understand the concept, and I know that in an emergency the R&R may very
well go out the window--as you know, all that is debatable. BUT, that
given, there are ways to handle sensitive information by using other means
than CW; although CW is a fine choice also!


Opsec happens to mean Operation Security.
I guess that everyone loves Delta
Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D.


We were "aware" of any lingo that might be used by our served agencies (that
was also done and learned by actually visiting the served agencies and
seeing/learning how they operate). However, on the support ops part of the
net--we didn't get into using all that fancy stuff, we pretty much used
plain language.


At the Boston Marathon I was given
a code key for authentication purposes.

Bill
KB1IUB


Uh, you mean strictly to "please" some public service official, or because
you actually used it? Honest question.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to
  #395   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 11:02 PM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.


With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately
coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya know
what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really good
investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above.



Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good grief.

That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much idiocy
about the Morse Code. Unbelievable

Dan/W4NTI






  #396   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 11:24 PM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message . 3.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.

At a EMA ARES training session, the
one of the ARES officials told us
that CW should be considered for
passing of vital information solely
to keep the opsec tight.

Opsec happens to mean Operation Security.
I guess that everyone loves Delta
Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D.

At the Boston Marathon I was given
a code key for authentication purposes.

Bill
KB1IUB


Bill, then there's COMSEC and MILSPEC. ;^) Brian
  #397   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 11:40 PM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


NOdoudaboudit!


Oh, hey, Dick! I still missed the intelligent response you were going to
post...or that I thought you were capable of posting, anyway. Did you post
it yet?

Kim W5TIT


Kim, you are forever the optimist. I've been reading his posts since
about '95, and he hasn't come up with one yet. I'm not so sure if
he's incapable, or if he's worried that he'll taint that "Stubborn
Missouri Mule" image that he's developed over the years and tears. In
any case, he just ain't right.

Brian
  #398   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 03:21 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams.


Agreed!

If we
take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day if
each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats
300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the
bands pretty busy.


Whoa, hold on a sec, Dee.

Let's look at that 1000 QSOs/day. Say a QSO lasts a half-hour on average -
that's 500 QSO-hours per day. Or, to put it another way, there would be about
21 QSOs going on at any one time.

Now if we just consider the bands 160 through 70 cm., we have 13 bands. Might
work out to one QSO on each HF/MF band and three QSOs each on 6, 2, 222 and 70
cm. Hardly enough to keep the bands pretty busy!

If you meant to say "one QSO per DAY", then things are much different.

But instead we hear the same people over and over on the
VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only
hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do
VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved.


Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY


  #399   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 04:28 AM
Ryan, KC8PMX
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is a little bit over 50Mhz of frequencies they could do alot with
there, and I almost would accept the loss of those bands if and only if we
had a guarantee that the rest of our bands will never be altered again.
What the hell, we sure aren't doing much with those bands as a hobby as a
whole.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

220Mhz, 902Mhz, and 1.2Ghz bands are desolate, at least around here. I
wouldn't be surprised if we lost the 220 and 902 bands.


Ryan:

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right! The "commercial interests"

obviously
have little or no use for HF, otherwise we'd have never even heard of BPL.

73 de Larry, K3LT



  #400   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 07:50 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote:

Opsec happens to mean Operation Security.
I guess that everyone loves Delta
Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D.



The acronym "OPSEC" has been around for many decades - long before Delta
Force or whatever. I first heard it from my father when I was just a young
child. And I've seen the acronym in very old books about WWII.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017