[Fists] Re: National Grant News Release

[Stan Reas]

At 23:32 9/12/03 -0400, I received an Email which follows:
>A SECOND YEAR OF FEDERAL FUNDING BOLSTERS RADIO AMATEURS' ROLE IN HOMELAND 
>SECURITY
>
>Newington, Conn., September 12, 2003 - ARRL-the national association for
>Amateur Radio-has been awarded another year of funding from the Corporation
>for National and Community Service to train more Amateur Radio operators in
>emergency communication measures.
>
>The year-two grant of nearly $180,000 will provide free training for about
>1,700 more Amateur Radio emergency communicators who register for ARRL's
>online Emergency Communications Level I Course.
>
>Last year, ARRL was among several dozen nonprofit organizations sharing some
>$10.3 million in federal money to boost homeland defense volunteer programs.
>In 2002, ARRL was able to provide emergency communications training to 1,699
>volunteers, exceeding the estimated program projections under the CNCS
>grant.
>
>"The outstanding success we've had with this program is one of the major
>reasons that ARRL was selected to receive additional funding this year,"
>says ARRL Chief Development Officer Mary Hobart. "The volunteers are
>enthusiastic and extremely dedicated to public service, and to helping their
>country in a crisis."
>
>ARRL President Jim Haynie says, Amateur Radio operators have proven that
>they are a vital resource during natural and man-made disasters. "They were
>there two years ago on September 11, they were there during the recent
>Northeast blackout and they've lent their communications expertise during
>dozens of emergencies in between," he says.
>
>In the event of an emergency, certified volunteers will work with community
>organizations to relay vital information in a structured and accurate
>manner. The federally funded training will enhance radio operators' skills
>at composing and relaying messages by voice and through computer based
>Amateur Radio communications modes.

My comment follows:

I am disappointed that the funded training is limited to:  "......composing 
and relaying messages by voice and through computer based Amateur Radio 
communications modes."

This statement specifically excludes the CW mode.  I'm quoting below from a 
paper prepared by Andrew Roos, ZS1AN

QUOTE
One of the roles of the amateur service is to provide emergency 
communications in the event of a national disaster.  Many different modes 
might be utilized, depending on the circumstances.  If the emergency is 
localized, then FM repeater communications are likely to play the leading 
role.  For more widespread emergencies, HF communications are 
important.  If the emergency leaves our computer systems operational, and 
if propagation is fairly good, then digital modes might be most 
effective.  If computers are unavailable but we can rely on high power 
transmitters and fair propagation, then SSB might be the mode of 
choice.  If we lose our computers and have to operate with limited power 
(for example from backup batteries or solar power) or under poor 
propagation conditions, then CW might be the best (and only) way to get 
through.

Of course some may argue that since computers can send and receive Morse 
code, competence in using computers and soundcard interfaces (which will in 
any case be needed for the digital modes) could also suffice for 
CW.  However if you look back at the attributes that make CW such a useful 
mode, you will see immediately that this is not the case as many of these 
advantages fall away if computers are used to generate and receive Morse.

Computers cannot read Morse correctly under poor conditions; it is not 
simple to construct a CW transceiver that includes a computer to interpret 
the Morse; and however power-efficient you manage to make your transceiver, 
you're not going to have much joy off batteries if you have to run a 
computer as well!

Reliance on computer would also make it less likely that CW communications 
would be available during a disaster.

So for these reasons I suggest that the key abilities required for a basic 
level of competence in CW are the ability to send Morse code by hand, and 
the ability to receive it by ear.  And this is why I believe that we should 
retain a Morse code requirement for an unrestricted amateur license.
UNQUOTE

The incoming Email continues:

>Trained volunteers will join local Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) 
>teams and support emergency activities ranging from equipment logistics, 
>victim location and identification, emergency shelter, food and water 
>information, medical equipment and materiel distribution, and, sometimes, 
>life-and-death communication.
>
>Today there are approximately 682,000 Amateur Radio operators in the 
>United States and more than 2.5 million worldwide. Learn more about 
>Amateur Radio on the ARRL site, www.arrl.org, or by calling the League's 
>toll-free number 1-800-32-NEW HAM.

My additional comment follows:

I think it is an undeniable fact that communication via CW is possible when 
SSB and other digital modes can not be carried on.

Again quoting Andrew's paper:

QUOTE
When it comes to weak-signal performance, CW is a clear leader on the HF 
bands. Listening tests have shown that SSB operator-to-operator grade 
service with 90% intelligibility of related words by trained operators 
requires a signal to noise ratio of 48 dB-Hz for a bandwidth of 3 KHz.  A 
similar level of intelligibility can be obtained with a CW signal to noise 
ratio of 27 dB-Hz in a 500 Hz bandwidth, while RTTY requires a signal to 
noise ratio of 55 dB-Hz.  This means that for the same level of 
intelligibility, a phone signal requires 11 dB more power than a CW signal; 
and an RTTY signal requires 28 dB more power.  For CW signals in a 250 Hz 
bandwidth the advantage over SSB is about 13 dB.  In other words, to 
achieve the same intelligibility under poor conditions as a 100 W CW signal 
you would require a 2 KW SSB signal!

I notice this effect regularly when band conditions are poor and I hear SSB 
operators whom I know to run high power into large beams complain that 
conditions are "impossible", while I still manage CW QSOs with 100 W and a 
dipole.

Admittedly some of the newer digital modes like WSJT also provide excellent 
weak-signal performance. However these modes are designed specifically for 
VHF operation. The best HF digital modes, like PSK-31, still fall short of 
CW in weak signal ability.
UNQUOTE

Loss of operators able to effectively use CW can seriously diminish the 
ability of Amateur Radio to perform emergency communications.

73, Stan - K4UK