[ARC5] "What's Old is New..."

Francesco Ledda frledda at att.net
Tue Aug 8 22:30:08 EDT 2017 

We all look at CW with nostalgia. I fully understand that, but we need to be aware that modern technology not only has brought fancy cell phones, but also great performance improvements to older communication methods, and CW has been replaced by voice first and by digital communication later.

In the early 80 fiber optics came to life. The Collins 1565  was one of the first and best fiber optic communication system; it run about 100Mb/s on a single fiber.  It was an NRZ On/Off system, or the equivalent of a CW comm system.

Today, the technology is such that on optical fiber can carry hundred of wavelengths at 400Gb/s each, or 80Terabit/second or more.

Modern HF radios can throttle the bandwidth to achieve the best data rate at the required reach. A message is digitized, put in a serial stream, and the radio takes care of the rest; it looks for a good frequency with open propagation, handshakes with the radio across the pond, start exchanging data, and throttle the data rate for the best performance. It is amazing stuff, and it is done thanks to sophisticated software and hardware.  In many ways, these modern radios do what skilled CW operators used to do it.  Yes, they do crazy stuff by manipulating amplitude an phase, but that is another story. 

CW is not really dead, it has morphed to something else. The operators are not there anymore, because machines have taken over.



73, K5URG

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 20:39, Leslie Smith <vk2bcu at operamail.com> wrote:
> 
>   Hello Francesco,
>   Good posting!
>   David (Stinson's) first post was directed to military comms.
>   Most of the subsequent postings also deal with that topic.
>   Your comment about (astonishing) capability of modern comms gives me some hope for military (and therefore emergency) type communication.  My posting was directed more to communication with "the public" in floods, storms (or if some nasty type puts a truly effective virus "out there".  In particular, I worry about telephone communication, with the loss of battery power from the exchange.  
> 
> BUT - some disaster will strike.  Some lives will be lost.  THEN some legislator will say,  "Oh, weren't those people from the 40s and 50s clever - to make the phone system work during a disaster!"
> 
> All the best!!
> 
>    73 de Les Smith
>    vk2bcu at operamail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 11:13, Francesco Ledda wrote:
>> Current DoD HF radios can do amazing things. First, on their own can figure out the best operating frequency, and they can slow down their data rate to achieve the required BER. HF is being rediscovered by the guys in uniform.  VLF and higher frequencies are the first one to come back operative after a nuclear blast. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 19:09, Leslie Smith <vk2bcu at operamail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Jeep,
>>> 
>>> Yes, certainly there is zero (or near zero) interest in CW.  (There are a few die-hard CW operators left).   The time when radio amateurs could provide a pool of competent technology (for public service) will soon be gone.  Even graduate engineers may be of limited service due to lack of knowledge caused by mass production.
>>> 
>>> I see all this wonderfully complex technology as fragile.  When it's going - well, it's the "bees knees".  But you could easily tell me a dozen ways the entire system could crash (and a virus is only one potential problem).   On the other hand, even if every satellite fell out of the sky, some form of basic comms could be provided by HF/CW/SSB or VHF/FM.   Again, contrasting complexity and reliability, digital broadcasting is certainly superior to the AM broadcast band - but the coverage and simplicity of AM broadcast says a great deal for keeping some AM/MF service alive for Tornadoes, floods and so on.  I worry about the loss of services in storms (and so on).
>>> 
>>> I easily hear the ABC broadcast in Sydney (100km distant) day and night.  In the evening I regularly LISTEN to ABC "local" from Brisbane (1000km distant).  This is on a cheap clock radio such as I can buy for $10 in any "el-cheapo" shop.  My "toy" home-brew sets receive the same broadcasts easily (including a 2 tube 2-transistor superhet).  
>>> 
>>> Here, in Australia, we see the mobile phone service "die" during cyclones (tornadoes).  Now, with the advent of broadband, power is needed IN MY HOME to run the landline phone service.  The time is gone when the power for the tel system was at the exchange  I have seen times when I had no power for 4 days (and longer in other places).  No mobile service, no landline - I see problems, including loss of life during storms (and so on).
>>> 
>>> However, one problem with my argument is this:  That the equipment (and training) needed to provide HF/SSB (or VHF/FM) is quickly disappearing too ...
>>> 
>>> New is good, (mostly better) but basic equipment can provide basic service when elaborate systems fail.
>>> 
>>> None of this involves "command" radio, (and is therefore irrelevant)  but I think some on this list will agree.
>>> Others will deny my observation completely.
>>> 
>>>    73 de Les Smith
>>>    vk2bcu at operamail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 02:56, jeepp wrote:
>>>> Wayne,
>>>> There is currently zero interest in cw. With the wholesale implementation of the NTIA Red Book some time ago, the number of amateur radio ( hence qualified cw operators)  went way down as virtually all amateur equipment was said to be non-compliant.  By that action, CAP was able to convince the DoD that funds were necessary for new equipment, HF SSB and VHF FM.  Unlike MARS and other Govt. agencies, no waivers or accomodation (clearly available) were requested by CAP.  This still a hot political topic in many circles.
>>>> Jeep K3HVG (50+ years in CAP)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net> 
>>>> Date: 8/8/17 12:32 (GMT-05:00) 
>>>> To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net 
>>>> Subject: [ARC5] "What's Old is New..." 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Back in the mid-70's I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Civil Air Patrol ran its own HF radio networks, using SSB - but that CW/Morse was not allowed without special permission from the local commander.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One would think that such organizations would be a reservoir of expertise in that crowbar-simple highly reliable means of communication, but the reverse proved to be true.
>>>> 
>>>> Wayne
>>>> 
>>>> WB5WSV   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>>> 
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> ARC5 mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>>>  
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> 
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> ARC5 mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>> 
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> 

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 20:13, Francesco Ledda <frledda at att.net> wrote:
> 
> Current DoD HF radios can do amazing things. First, on their own can figure out the best operating frequency, and they can slow down their data rate to achieve the required BER. HF is being rediscovered by the guys in uniform.  VLF and higher frequencies are the first one to come back operative after a nuclear blast. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 19:09, Leslie Smith <vk2bcu at operamail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Jeep,
>> 
>> Yes, certainly there is zero (or near zero) interest in CW.  (There are a few die-hard CW operators left).   The time when radio amateurs could provide a pool of competent technology (for public service) will soon be gone.  Even graduate engineers may be of limited service due to lack of knowledge caused by mass production.
>> 
>> I see all this wonderfully complex technology as fragile.  When it's going - well, it's the "bees knees".  But you could easily tell me a dozen ways the entire system could crash (and a virus is only one potential problem).   On the other hand, even if every satellite fell out of the sky, some form of basic comms could be provided by HF/CW/SSB or VHF/FM.   Again, contrasting complexity and reliability, digital broadcasting is certainly superior to the AM broadcast band - but the coverage and simplicity of AM broadcast says a great deal for keeping some AM/MF service alive for Tornadoes, floods and so on.  I worry about the loss of services in storms (and so on).
>> 
>> I easily hear the ABC broadcast in Sydney (100km distant) day and night.  In the evening I regularly LISTEN to ABC "local" from Brisbane (1000km distant).  This is on a cheap clock radio such as I can buy for $10 in any "el-cheapo" shop.  My "toy" home-brew sets receive the same broadcasts easily (including a 2 tube 2-transistor superhet).  
>> 
>> Here, in Australia, we see the mobile phone service "die" during cyclones (tornadoes).  Now, with the advent of broadband, power is needed IN MY HOME to run the landline phone service.  The time is gone when the power for the tel system was at the exchange  I have seen times when I had no power for 4 days (and longer in other places).  No mobile service, no landline - I see problems, including loss of life during storms (and so on).
>> 
>> However, one problem with my argument is this:  That the equipment (and training) needed to provide HF/SSB (or VHF/FM) is quickly disappearing too ...
>> 
>> New is good, (mostly better) but basic equipment can provide basic service when elaborate systems fail.
>> 
>> None of this involves "command" radio, (and is therefore irrelevant)  but I think some on this list will agree.
>> Others will deny my observation completely
>> 
>>    73 de Les Smith
>>    vk2bcu at operamail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 02:56, jeepp wrote:
>>> Wayne,
>>> There is currently zero interest in cw. With the wholesale implementation of the NTIA Red Book some time ago, the number of amateur radio ( hence qualified cw operators)  went way down as virtually all amateur equipment was said to be non-compliant.  By that action, CAP was able to convince the DoD that funds were necessary for new equipment, HF SSB and VHF FM.  Unlike MARS and other Govt. agencies, no waivers or accomodation (clearly available) were requested by CAP.  This still a hot political topic in many circles.
>>> Jeep K3HVG (50+ years in CAP)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net> 
>>> Date: 8/8/17 12:32 (GMT-05:00) 
>>> To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net 
>>> Subject: [ARC5] "What's Old is New..." 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Back in the mid-70's I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Civil Air Patrol ran its own HF radio networks, using SSB - but that CW/Morse was not allowed without special permission from the local commander.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> One would think that such organizations would be a reservoir of expertise in that crowbar-simple highly reliable means of communication, but the reverse proved to be true.
>>> 
>>> Wayne
>>> 
>>> WB5WSV   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>> 
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> ARC5 mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>>  
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20170808/b56306b5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARC5 mailing list