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

John Langridge kb5njd at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 18:24:53 EST 2021 

I think your comment about short-range coverage is really key.

On 11/30/21, Ed Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:
> 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
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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