[Ares-races] Use of HF for local communications

[George Andrews]

Joe,

Several comments on this topic.

Flexibility,  convenience and optimal use of resources in operation is of
utmost priority. We should have HF available when needed. It is demonstrably
more convenient to deal with setting up VHF and up antenna. With the linked
system in CT, I believe the state is covered quite well as you indicated. In
many cases the response will be localized and perhaps much of the
communication need will involve ranges of less than 20 miles. Which can be
set up and operational more quickly for such purposes, HF or VHF? One can
also get some rather interesting results using FM simplex and horizontal
antennae! What about 6 M FM?

If one wants more range, why not consider 6 M or 2 M SSB? There are so many
radios that cover HF through 70 cm (all mode) today and I am sure a lot of
folks own one. Ten watts and a horizontal loop will do quite well, up that
by 10 db and your in even better shape.

And now to optimizing use of available resources. Consider the number of
ARES members that have VHF equipment. Handheld/portable equipment is
essential. How many operators have 75M SSB hand held equipment? And how
effective would that be? One should also take a look at the license class
held by ARES members. A switch to HF as the primary means of communication
would result extremely poor use of human resources. There would be much less
that many ARES members could do. Can we afford to "push away" help?

A switch to HF for primary communication would result in a lack of
flexibility ( use whatever works for the situation). it is not convenient
(or practical for portable communication) and it does not make best use of
available human resources(tech. class license participation). It is such a
bad idea, perhaps I have been hooked by a troll! But then it may just be a
proposition put forth by those who have little to no practical experience in
such matters.  In any event, I am in CT and will support the continued use
of VHF and up as the primary mode of communication.

George Andrews, RRPT
N1YAE FN31kj
WPYQ853
gandrews@ntplx.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe" <k1ike@snet.net>
To: <ares-races@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:05 AM
Subject: [Ares-races] Use of HF for local communications


> Hello to All,
>
> There is a group that is trying to promote the use of HF in the State of
Connecticut for emergency communications WITHIN the state.  For those of you
who are not familiar with my state, it is approximately 100 miles East to
West, and 50 mile North to South.  The primary frequency for communications
has been selected as the 75 meter SSB band.  I myself do not see the logic
in this.  I am in favor of the use of 2 meter repeaters to cover this area,
being careful to select repeaters that are centralized to the area and that
have backup power sources. My opinion is the HF would only be effective for
communications from Connecticut to other areas OUTSIDE the state. HF would
only be my choice if the 2 meter network failed to give adequate coverage in
isolated areas.
>
> What have been your experiences?
>
> 73, Joe, k1ike
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> Now, more than ever, QSL.NET is in urgent need of your financial support.
>
> Please help QSL.NET by sending a donation now.
> _______________________________________________
> ARES-RACES mailing list
> ARES-RACES@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ares-races
>