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

Ed Cole kl7uw at acsalaska.net
Tue Nov 30 18:22:40 EST 2021 

Probable not for some of the same reasons:  more difficult (meaning 
learning something new), propagation, less operators...

80m does well over short to mid-range that emcomm requires.  And when it 
doesn't 40 or 20m will.  Apparently no need.

But what is being missed is the reliability of 630m for short-range (its 
always there).

73, Ed - KL7UW

On 11/30/2021 1:53 PM, John Langridge wrote:
> I just checked the RRI traffic net directory
> (http://radio-relay.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/TrafficNets.pdf)
> and out of 6 pages of listings, there are zero on 160 meter.
> 
> But, the 80m CW traffic net that I frequent denotes 160m as an option
> for capable stations when the "situation" warrants.  In 30 years of
> off and on involvement with that group, I've never been asked to QSY
> to 160 to handle a piece of traffic and I've never seen it happen but
> it does not mean that it doesn't.  Other may have other experiences.
> 
> 
> 73!
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/30/21, Anthony Good <anthony.good at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

More information about the 600MRG mailing list