SCAMP, Win Link,  and Black Helos?

Does it have the same name as the original. I tried to download it and was told I have this already.

I will replace the one I have now with this new one.

Tnx, Ken

P.S. ARRL has link to this document, not the document.

P.S.S. Sorry you are correct. I have added the new one under a new name so that I can compare the two (2).

 

Dr. White,

I don't own an SSB rig except on 10mtrs and I don't have this set up at this time. I operate QRP utilizing radiotelegraphy and plan to continue this work until I find a new place to live. Anything over 10watts interfers with a touch lamp used by my legally blind mother-in-law. She has complained to the local police that I'm trying to do her harm by using my station.

I've already stated that I think SCAMP is a good idea. I will say again that attempting to dominate our spectrum with digital communication systems is not in the best interest of anyone. Fortunately, the out is that I can operate my telegraphy station anywhere should it be needed in an emergency.

Ken

 

This is a very interesting statement. It appears that there is no way for the control operator to determine that the automatically controlled station is not causing interferrence. Back in 1995 when unattended operation was authorized in PR Docket 95-59 the FCC stated:

"We do recognize the concerns of those who oppose the proposal on the basis of potential interference, and in response to these concerns we are limiting when automatic control can be employed. First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference. Second, we are designating subbands to which transmissions between two automatically controlled stations are confined. These subbands are a small portion of the spectrum otherwise available for digital emissions types. We also are confident in the ability of the amateur service community to respond, as it has in the past to the challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands."

It is clear that the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference. The amateur community has had over 9 years to respond to the challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands. The packet community seems to have met the challange, the Winlink community can only come up with excuses. How long do we have to wait?

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

EMCOMM in other places

 

I think we can all concede that this system is good, but it still does not justify one system controlling all of our amateur spectrum

Ken

 

n5rfx: "Yes J2E is a valid designator for digital voice. What is your point? If digitized voice were data it would be J2D. Data and voice are not the same thing. BTW can you even find a definition of data in Title 47 of the CFR? Excluding the definition in 97.3, it appears that data is a ambiguous term."

Wait a minute.

1st char: type of modulation of the main carrier
2nd char: nature of signal modulating the main carrier
3rd char: type of information to be transmitted.

1st char: J = SSB
2nd char: 2 = digitized or quantized
3rd char: E = voice (telephony)

It is the digitization that allows whatever the content is to be sent in discrete packets. In essence that makes the digitized voice into data that can be manipulated via data processing techniques. However, it is *still* voice that is being sent - it is just digitzed, processed voice.

I would agree with you that the term "data" is ambiguous in the rules. If the FCC would merely change their definitions to distinguish between digitized content and non-digitized content instead of data versus voice we would still have no problem with multimedia formats. Things would be a lot clearer and we could progress in determining the best methods to allocate spectrum for the various uses.

tim ab0wr

 

I love it!!

See this site:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/demolition_dcconv.htm

The government has finally figured out that CW can get through sometimes when nothing else will and is working on methods to help first responders utilize the mode to best advantage.

All the while we are being told that WL2K is the best method!!

ROFL!!!!

tim ab0wr

 

That's not actually what the article is saying..

it was describing how the NIST were trying to develop a weak signal system for finding people trapped in the rubble of buildings... one method was by converting possible CW signals into visual images...to make the obscure signals readable.

If you want to get into a discussion of the physics... there are several amateur digital technologies such as PSK 31 and MFSK 16 which can maintain effective communications in noisy weak signal situations long after CW is no longer copyable...

I suspect that when they complete their study they may come to the conclusion that there are several simple and inexpensive weak signal technologies that will perform much better than CW.

In fact the only real advantage CW has is that if you can spark two wires together you might create a readable signal... all other methods..require some technology interface..

 

Ken:

I have never understood your fear of a spectrum grab...

Winlink currently passes over 150,000 emails per month...which is more that the NTS, MARS and all other Amateur radio communications methods combined... and yet it uses a relatively tiny part of the spectrum...Even with the rather huge increase in EMCOMM traffic due to the Tsunami, there has been virtually no increase in the amount spectrum used...

In addition, Winlink is being deployed all over the country in EOC for RACES and ARESCOM and yet I still do not see any visible increase in spectrum usage...

One of the reasons for this is that Winlink uses a widely distributed topology which seeks to reach the Internet with the minimum usage of radio communications.  Like the Internet, it has multiple paths and multiple points of access for redundancy... In fact, if an alternative path to radio is available, Winlink will always use that path first.  Plus as soon a message connects to a PMBO or Telpac Node it immediately leaves the air and is onto the Internet which means that radio spectrum usage is minimized where possible...

So in spite of the irrational rantings of the "Lunatic Fringe" there is really no factual basis to your fears...

 

Ken:

You are correct .. in an absolutely dire emergency you may be able to operate your CW station when no one else can operate any other system...while your skill at telegraphy is something you should be proud of, don't hold your breath until your telegraphy is needed...

Realistically most EMCOMM today is either VHF FM Voice, HF SSB Voice, Echolink Voice and Winlink Data...

I am involved in our local ARES EMCOMM where I do not believe that there are even any plans to use CW in EMCOMM anymore and to the best of my knowledge no one has used it locally for EMCOMM for years.

and I have been working Tsunami EMCOMM...

While there may be some CW EMCOMM during this dire Tsunami emergency so far I have yet to see any evidence of it or any traffic by CW...

 

ve3gfw: "That's not actually what the article is saying..

I think you need to read the article again. It is EXACTLY what the article is saying.

"it was describing how the NIST were trying to develop a weak signal system for finding people trapped in the rubble of buildings... one method was by converting possible CW signals into visual images...to make the obscure signals readable. "

ROFL!! Right! Converting possible CW signals into visual images is not using CW for weak signal emergency communications! You need to expand your world view friend.

"If you want to get into a discussion of the physics... there are several amateur digital technologies such as PSK 31 and MFSK 16 which can maintain effective communications in noisy weak signal situations long after CW is no longer copyable..."

ROFLMAO!!! Rrriiigggghhhttttt! Firemen are going to start carrying laptops with them so they can use PSK31 and MFS16 for weak signal communications with central command! I think you are grasping at straws here!!!!

tim ab0wr

 

All emergency services are moving towards digital voice. This provides the security they need. The real problem is the infrastructure required to make this stuff work. While I'm not holding my breath waiting for the resurrection of CW, I do have questions about any technology the requires a computer other than the human brain. It is the single most important element in any communication system. The intelligence must get added to the carrier in some way. My contention is that there will be situations where no infrastructure is available and only analog systems with direct connections to the human brain will be all that is left or needed.

We are painting ourselves into a corner by becoming so reliant on our technology. We are pushing more and more of our efforts towards transferring our intelligence to silicon without regard for the biological neurons that hold the information prior to the sending processing. This system does not have an answer for the situation where there are no computers and sophisticated equipment around to make to highly technical networks that we are driving ourselves to rely on in emergencies to work.

Dr White, I am rightfully proud of my ability to send and receive amateur radiotelegraphy. I'm even more proud of my education and experience in EMCOMM where I have experience utilizing every form of system at my disposal and making sound decisions concerning how to properly deploy my systems. My 20+ years in CD and EMA and as a OES for the League are the high points in my amateur experience and always will be.

My major concern remains the mad rush to systems that rely on technology that can be destroyed during disasters. I'm frightened to think that we are headed towards a single system with a small number of people with large egos in control of the infrastructure. I'm sorry if this concern does not sit well with you and your colleagues.

Ken

 

Howard,

Apaprantly you have not heard of "QRSS" AKA "Extremely Slow Speed CW". It has been used to set Trans Atlantic distance records at 136kHz and CW was used to set records recentlty on 400gHz. The records on 100 and 200 gHz were set with CW. Several record breaking QRP QSOs happened recently using QRSS with stations communicating over 800 miles on 24 microwatts.

The guys who set the record on 1750 meters at 971 miles using microwatts comment:

The subject of Tim's link is detecting weak signals in the noise floor. Looks like CW is the best tool.

 

He won't argue with you about experiments and DX attempts at the limits of our capabilities. He will argue with you about EMCOMM and services for remotely located amateurs.

We might extend some off our other digital modes to slow speeds and achieve similar detections below the noise floor.

The issue for digital communications is about utililty not weak signal activities. They are interested in handling all the data they can pass not with being detected under adverse conditions. He has conceded that I could continue communicate under conditions where his digital system will not work. Again, it is the shear utility of their system that shouts out for it to be used.

Ken

 

Ken has replied much more eloquently than I could...

Yes ... I was aware of the QRSS experiments and if someone were really interested in weak signal work.. there are a lot of existing digital protocols that could easily improve on those results...

However this reflector is about SCAMP and how it will not only lower the apparent cost of data communications on HF and VHF but also how it will improve the EMCOMM capabilities of Winlink...

The point Ken makes is that the shear utility of Winlink in EMCOMM situations and the proposed addition of SCAMP to its arsenal of protocols (Packet, Pactor 1, 2,3) "shouts out for it to be used"