[600MRG] WAS Emergency Traffic on 630m NOW: I dunno - general complaining about the state of MF and LF???

Tue Nov 30 17:43:30 EST 2021

Side question: How much emcomm use does 160 meters get?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:37 PM John Langridge <kb5njd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Boy we are about to creep way off Warren's original topic :-)
>
> > I suppose if an emergency were declared, 630m might be restricted to
> > emcommm for the stricken area.  So Winlink would be OK.
>
> I suppose that is possible but I seriously doubt it would ever be on
> the table to actually happen for many of the other reasons previously
> discussed.  I just don't see it happening.
>
> But, getting back to the point of equipment:
>
> Between Kenwood, Elecraft and Icom, there are plenty of radios that do
> a great job making low level signals and have good, capable receivers
> but its almost like the manufacturers hide these facts when they could
> really be using them as selling points.  Elecraft is really the only
> one that makes any effort to take advantage of it but even they miss
> the mark.  People are often surprised that the newer Kenwood or Icom
> radios operate at 472.  This came up recently with a new station that
> is using an Icom.   Icom doesnt even bother to mention not to run the
> power up because the output is dirty above drive level.  Or that you
> need an external low pass filter..so that is one point that has to be
> fixed going forward but in general its off manufacturer's radar.  I
> don't know how that gets fixed so people know that their radios
> generate a signal that can be amplified...Responses are rare when a
> conversation attempt is initiated.
>
> And then there are amplifiers to be paired with these drive level
> rigs.... K5DNL shuttered his amp operation at the beginning of the
> year and while there are still plenty of plans out there on the
> internet for a wide variety of great amps in addition to offerings by
> G0MRF and that kit operation out of VK, people *seem* unwilling to
> build or even assemble.  It's not everyone but people I encountered
> regularly pre-2020 would always comment that they might give it a try
> once they could go over to HRO and put down their card and buy a turn
> key station.  Of course, we are still waiting on them and will be
> waiting for them for a long time....
>
> Probably the closest thing to turn key and bullet proof is the monitor
> sensors transverters but the common complaint there is that its
> pricey.  There ain't no free lunch...  Stuff costs what it costs.
>
> After transitioning to the Rig Expert, I realized that my modified MFJ
> was never much more than an antenna dipper.  Getting further away from
> 50 Ohm's meant that the numbers were meaningless so trying to make
> calculations and decisions were a shot in the dark.  I found that with
> the numbers from the Rig Expert, however, I could actually develop
> networks that were in the ball park enough to respond to a reactive
> antenna and make it work.  I'm sure today the nanoVNA is the successor
> and touts even better results.  Always more do-dads...
>
> The act of resonating and matching is easy enough when following the
> procedures and not cutting corners on materials and "the process"...
> But that's the trick...  too many won't follow those step and then
> they give up and that is one less signal on the air with a workable
> signal....
>
> yes, I've let this rant devolve into complaining at this point
> somehow.  I do hope a few more prospective ops will take the plunge
> this season, take a chance and build something and get on the air.
> There are a lot of sharks circling for new blood...  There are also
> plenty of guys willing to help.  You just have to ask.
>
> 73... I'm done... Warren got more than be bargained for ;-p
>
>
> John..
>
>
> On 11/30/21, Ed Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > OK, just a couple more comments:
> > I suppose if an emergency were declared, 630m might be restricted to
> > emcommm for the stricken area.  So Winlink would be OK.
> >
> > Emcom organizations would provide the digital stuff and one would only
> > need the antenna, 630m equipment, and a radio with computer I/F.
> >
> > My K3 operates on 630m at mw level via the transverter I/F board and my
> > modified NDB Beacon drives at that level to provide 100w into 50-ohm.
> > My antenna loading coil matches 50-ohm to 20-ohm antenna resistance at
> > 630m.
> >
> > I modified a MFJ-269B to work at 400-800 Hz so merely connected it in
> > series with the ground and bottom end of the coil.  Moved the antenna
> > tap until there was minimum reactance (that turned out with R=20). If
> > you have strong nearby broadcast stations, they can affect the meter.  I
> > was lucky that 920 KHz was the only local AM station.  I recently bought
> > a new MFJ-269D which covers 100Hz to 470 MHz.
> >
> > I found the 50-ohm tap by watching the MFJ connected to the coax and
> > moving another tap (about 2 turn above ground.  Bird 43 Meter with 100H
> > element shows good match, though underreads power.  I have a RF ammeter
> > on the NDB transmitter to set output (1.4 amps-rms at 50-ohm).
> >
> > The K3 needs the upgraded synthesizer boards to operate below 490 KHz.
> > K3s and the new K4 have that as standard.
> >
> > Since the NDB operates with xtal control one only needs to drive at
> > under mw levels (I pulled the XOSC and coupled with a 0.1 uF disc
> > ceramic cap.  The first driver past the BP coil (adjustable 250-500 KHz)
> > is a 2N2222.  The NDB is a Southern Avionics unit (I bought surplus for
> > $40).
> >
> > 73, Ed - KL7uW
> >
> > On 11/30/2021 11:18 AM, John Langridge wrote:
> >> Hi Ed,
> >>
> >>> I think most of the HF emergency comms are using a digital mode.  That
> >>> would work on
> >> 630m but how much spectrum would it occupy on 630m?
> >>
> >> Yes, a lot (but not all) of that is using Pactor and Winlink,
> >> particularly when operator resources are limited.  Because of BW
> >> requirements I've also avoided opening that pandora's box.
> >>
> >>
> >>> CW
> >>> would be simple but running a digital mode more useful as text could be
> >>> printed at either end.
> >>
> >>
> >> yes, but this operation I described was intended to be a simple
> >> exercise without a bunch of hardware and interconnects to "borrowed"
> >> transceivers or laptops.  Im not much of a digital op anyway...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Biggest challenge for 630m is the antenna.  A 40-foot high T would be
> no
> >>> more challenge than setting a HF antenna during FD.  Ground radials
> >>> would probably take the most effort/time.
> >>
> >> Yes.  The physical setup is not so much an issue, but radial setup in
> >> the heat or cold could be a factor.  The real issue seems to be the
> >> fundamental understanding of R and X and being able to follow the
> >> simple steps to both resonate and match an antenna.  I can't tell you
> >> how many hams just can't keep from looking at an SWR meter instead of
> >> following what is happening with R and X on their analyzer as they
> >> make adjustments.. it turns a 5 minute exercise into one that is 20
> >> minutes or more.  I've watched it happen on many occasions...But
> >> antenna related issues are probably the #1 complication followed by
> >> #2, which is readily available equipment or "ready to go, out of the
> >> box" hardware.
> >>
> >> Anyway, this is all probably off topic from Warren's original
> >> questions.  Warren, I'm not aware of a single instance under part 97
> >> rules where hams have been called to use 472 for emergency traffic but
> >> the potential is there and the core guys on the air every night could
> >> get it done if they were called to action.
> >>
> >> 73!
> >>
> >> John..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/30/21, Ed Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:
> >>> John,
> >>>
> >>> This experience repeats what Laurence-KL7L and I did the summer of 2012
> >>> as experimental licensees on 495-KHz
> >>>
> >>> I would transmit 100w at the transmitter with est 4w EIRP and Laurence
> >>> would receive it about 70 miles north showing 35 dB above noise solid
> >>> signals every time.  We sked at noon every Saturday for most of the
> >>> summer.
> >>>
> >>> I was using a 43-foot high by 130-foot inverted-L with two parallel
> >>> wires separated 2-foot.  I had three radial of 2-foot chicken wire laid
> >>> on the ground 50 to 70-foot long.  Fourth radial was my 120-foot run of
> >>> 1-5/8 inch hardline from support tower to the house (shield grounded at
> >>> both ends).
> >>>
> >>> That 50-foot support tower came down in high winds a year ago so I
> >>> decided to run my 80m dipole with ladder line strung at 40-foot in a T
> >>> configuration with ladder line shorted and fed by a large base coil
> >>> (essentially the same antenna as you used).  Things didn't get done
> this
> >>> year.
> >>>
> >>> I plan to run a 40m dipole at right angles to the 80m dipole feed point
> >>> so both will act as top loading the T configuration.  I plan to "plant"
> >>> up to 8 radial wires in the lawn by splitting the sod with an axe and
> >>> pushing the wire into the slot that results.  Hope to have that working
> >>> by end of next summer.
> >>>
> >>> I think most of the HF emergency comms are using a digital mode.  That
> >>> would work on 630m but how much spectrum would it occupy on 630m?
> >>>
> >>> Biggest challenge for 630m is the antenna.  A 40-foot high T would be
> no
> >>> more challenge than setting a HF antenna during FD.  Ground radials
> >>> would probably take the most effort/time.
> >>>
> >>> 100% reliable range should extend to maybe 200-miles (or more?).  CW
> >>> would be simple but running a digital mode more useful as text could be
> >>> printed at either end.  I was involved in professional emcomm at my
> >>> workplace 1994-2009 (Head of Comm dept.).
> >>>
> >>> 73, Ed - KL7UW (ex WD2XSH-45)
> >>> http://www.kl7uw.com/630m.htm
> >>>
> >>> On 11/30/2021 9:54 AM, John Langridge wrote:
> >>>> Hi Warren,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> About 3 years ago KE7A and I exchanged radiogram traffic on CW between
> >>>> one another at field day.  At the time we were about 100 miles apart
> >>>> and we were both using a Monitor Sensors transverter (50w), bucket
> >>>> coil (that went to WM3M after the event) and a ladder line fed dipole
> >>>> that this particular club's field day site was using on their CW
> >>>> station.  I temporarily configured it as a Martconi T, about 40 foot
> >>>> tall with just a very minimal number of radials.  I would have to look
> >>>> at my notes for estimated EIRP but it was very low but there were no
> >>>> problems in passing the traffic, even with summer noise and storms
> >>>> that were in the area, as I recall.
> >>>>
> >>>> We exchanged three pieces of traffic and I used it as a topic for a CQ
> >>>> article on tactical comms on 630m.  UTC notification had been
> >>>> submitted for the site of the exercise about 6 months prior.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can tell you that it has been a hard sell to the traffic folks since
> >>>> it requires a little more effort than the typical plug and play ham
> >>>> radio and we really aren't doing anything on the mechanical side in
> >>>> software...  It's just good old-fashion radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't say that this exercise  had any influence but I was encouraged
> >>>> to see the RRI folks talking about prospects of doing the same
> >>>> scenario on 160m  using the same type of setup just a few months after
> >>>> my article went to press.  SO perhaps there are some "baby steps" at
> >>>> play.  I should have followed up at the time and asked a few more
> >>>> questions to them but I did not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Traffic handling is changing a lot and has been for quite some time.
> >>>> I tried to offer this exercise from the perspective  of just another
> >>>> tool in the bag for a traffic handler that wanted to be really
> >>>> prepared.  Whether it hit home or "stuck", I can't say.  As a
> >>>> semi-regular op on a state level CW traffic net, I can tell you that
> >>>> no one has ever asked me to QSY to 630m to pass a piece of traffic but
> >>>> I would be happy to if they ask.
> >>>>
> >>>> So in summary, we did it on 630m to show it could be done with minimal
> >>>> hardware and that value could be realized from doing it (in this case
> >>>> the recipient received their traffic).  Had there been a real
> >>>> emergency, we could have done it.  Ground wave was stable and strong
> >>>> enough and we didn't have to compete with QRO stations during the
> >>>> field day period on HF to send the same traffic.  Obviously no
> >>>> emergency in this case, but like most traffic nets, they are training
> >>>> opportunities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73,
> >>>>
> >>>> John KB5NJD..
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/30/21, Warren Ziegler <wd2xgj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> It's been some years now since U.S. Amateurs have been allowed to use
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> 472-479 KHz band. The justification was that it would be useful for
> >>>>> emergency traffic. Just wondering how many of you have handled
> >>>>> emergency
> >>>>> comms on 630m? If so, can you provide details on the nature of the
> >>>>> emergency and why you chose 630m to pass the traffic?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tnx & 73 Warren K2ORS
> >>>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> 600MRG mailing list
> >>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> >>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>>> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
> >>>>
> >>>> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> >>>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>>>
> >>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>> 600MRG mailing list
> >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
> >>>
> >>> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> >>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>>
> >>
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/600mrg/attachments/20211130/33589523/attachment.html>