We amateur radio operators are better off if we stay out of the internet services business.

What little of radio technology you might need to know in order to play isp with the WIFI stuff - the WIFI hobbyists are fully up to speed on. In fact they are way ahead of us, just as one would expect.

A few months back, for example, I read about a homebrew portable WIFI setup that featured a gain antenna on a motorized swivel that would automatically detect signals and ‘lock on’ to them by pointing the beam without human intervention. I’ve never heard of hams doing anything like that.

You have to give credit where credit is due, and understand that in the majority of cases, we would be better off to let the internet hobbyists handle the internet stuff, while we radio hobbyists concentrate on our specialty, amateur radio communications.

I feel that there is more to be gained from recognizing, respecting and working in cooperation with internet hobbyists than there is from trying to intrude into their area of expertise. The fact is that amateur radio has not offered a single innovation or service in this area that internet hobbyists cannot match. Due to this we are often seen as busybodies, resource and credit hogs who prevent more knowlegable internet hobbyists from doing the same job - better.

Every time we touch internet services, we injure and endanger our own hobby. I understand that internet hobbyists among us see this as the only definition of ‘progress’ for amateur radio, but the truth is that the various ‘hinternet’ projects have been holding back real progress in the development of amateur radio communications for decades, now.

More than that, the wrongheaded pursuit of ‘hinternet’ has brought on one regulatory threat to the hobby after another, attacking any section of PART97 that differentiates amateur radio from the internet or that might prevent a third-rate imitation of its features including email, content restrictions, encryption, and an artificial, contrived “need” for ultra-wide digital modes on HF ( PACTOR III ) that has brought us severe interference problems, divisiveness and controversy.

The hinternet concept has bred a large cadre of scofflaws within the hobby. - Scofflaws even at ARRL HQ, of all places. Scofflaws who make the CB’ers look positively benign because the CB’ers do not constantly attack the PART97 regulations or petition the FCC to eliminate any part of them.

Apparently, if we could arrainge to trade off the ‘hinternetters’ in amateur radio today for the same number of CB operators, we would be much better off.

Don’t you think that it’s about time we got over the internet and directed our attention back toward amateur radio?

I think there is a very good case for amateurs to recognize and work with internet hobbyists where issues of internet connectivity arise, dedicating the bulk of our own energies into what we do best - radio communications.

For my part, I would encourage a transfer of information between an independent amateur radio digital network and the internet, but not allow one network to transport the other one’s traffic under any circumstance beyond an extraordinary one, a dire emergency where the rules and regs become secondary in any case.

It has been noted many times that slavish adherence to a single standard tends to undercut and stifle any sort of innovation, most particularly in the digital world where a single bit placed or utilized differently can make one system incompatible with another. - The single standard being discussed here is the internet protocol, and how a fixation upon that single protocol has served to stifle, not fuel innovation within the amateur radio digital community for far too long. It’s been a dead-end rut, one that stifles our natural tendency to creativity and innovation.

Personally, I am through giving lip service to the ‘hinternet’ concept, and I’m not going to be too good about standing by anymore while others give it lip service either. - It is a juvenile, ill-considered concept that has brought nothing but grief to the hobby, and it is about time that it be recognized as such.

So we can move on and get our sense of mission back in focus.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

I think the day of the TNC in a box is just about over.

Who wants to shell out hundreds of dollars when some free software and the soundcard included with their computer can give them so much more, and never becomes obsolete since it is so easy to upgrade the software?

In this day and age, the only digital modes that are not available for free soundcard systems are the proprietary TOR modes, which are inefficient, expensive, controversial bandwidth hogs in the first place. Who needs them?

Is there really any justification for using enough bandwidth for fifteen PSK31 QSO’s ( PACTOR III ) in order to chat and exchange brag files or email? Aren’t we supposed to be figuring out how to put more, not less amateurs on HF these days?

How about spectral efficiency? Aren’t we supposed to be pursuing good engineering practice as amateur radio operators?

I have a stack of old style TNC’s and multimode controllers here in my shack, including two PK-232MBX’s that are nice doorstops but never see any use because anything that is really worth doing digitally on HF these days can be done so much better with soundcard software and an inexpensive interface.

For me, the ease and convenience of a waterfall display is light-years ahead of squinting at a row of LED’s and hoping that I can turn the radio’s tuning knob in a small enough increment to tune in a signal properly. Contrast this laborious and inaccurate process with one simple mouse-click for absolutely accurate tuning in less than a second and you’ll see what I mean. The TNC’s and multimode controllers in a box are on their way out, already obsolete.

For remote digital node locations, industrial single-board PC’s ( PC-104 form ) are inexpensive, designed to work in harsh environments, use flash drives so they have no moving parts, run on 5 volts and are about 4 1/2 inches square by one inch thick.

For home use and many networking applications, you can find old used PC’s that will handle the digital soundcard modes for free, or close to it. Contrast this with the hundreds of dollars asked for multimode controllers, and you are looking at the last nail in the TNC box’s coffin.

I don’t have anything against somebody using one of these boxes if they have one, but ( A word to the wise ) I will warn those users that the resale value of such equipment has only one way to go.

The TNCs and multimode controllers in a box were a great boon to the amateur radio service, introducing many of us to digital HF long before soundcard digital software and modern computers were available. The main reason I keep my PK-88, PK-96, DPK-96 and PK-232’s around is for pure TNC nostalgia.

They remind me of the good old days, and every now and then I hook one of them up to remind myself why I no longer seriously try to use that kind of equipment any more.

Thankfully it appears that the ARRL did not get their way with their last minute threats and pleas to the FCC, and things worked out to benefit all amateurs to some extent, instead of just for the ARRL’s pet digital group.

Imagine the consternation over this at ARRL HQ!

It is a sad pass to come to, but the fact is that today when we hear about the ARRL not getting its way, it means that things have worked out the best for all amateurs.

“All amateurs” is a group that the ARRL only claims when they want to puff up their image or get their way. When it comes around to doing something for “all amateurs” though, we find that the ARRL’s pet digital group gets first consideration over everyone else, every time.

Ironically, the ARRL’s “pet digital group” ( WinLink) is the one digital outfit that has shown itself to be incorrigible about creating interference and crashing other ham’s QSO’s. In other words, the ARRL has targeted the most Lid-Like digital group in all of amateur radio, embraced it as their own, and put the interests of this tiny clique of Lids above those of all amateurs.

Hmmm… Must be some money in it, somewhere !

Obviously the concept of serving the best interests of US amateurs and the hobby we enjoy has been lost at ARRL HQ, along with respect for good operating practice. - Instead we see active promotion of Lid-like operating practice, an adversarial relationship with both the FCC and the US amateur community, a downhill plunge in membership numbers, and pathetic DHS grant money grubbing.

The moneychangers are in the temple!

What would Jesus do about that, I wonder? - I have a feeling that if Hiram P. Maxim could somehow appear at ARRL HQ today, the folks there would find out how the mysterious Wouff-Hong and the Rettysnitch are employed, right quick!

I’m afraid it’s up to us to help ourselves though. - I say we should march on ARRL HQ and improvise as we go along with the Wouff-Hong and Rettysnitch.

That’s what they’re there for.

I got this idea while thinking about compact yagis for foxhunting. - Here is a picture of a regular VHF yagi antenna, with gamma match to serve as a starting point:

The special foxhunting antenna below is a regular yagi with all the elements cut in half so they are 1/4 wave instead of half-wave. On the bottom, there is a handle for easy pointing:

This 1/4 wave vertical yagi design for ARDF is easier to get into and out of a car, is lightwieght and handy.

I thought that for a vertical HF antenna, a scaled-up version with a reflector but no director elements might be easier to do… Something like this:

One that is scaled up for thirty meters would fit well on the roof of a metal building here that we call “the barn”.

The building just happens to be broadside to the exact direction I hope to point my ‘vbeam’, and is twenty-five feet tall.

One thing to remember is that the gamma match ought to be about 1/2 to 1/4 the diameter of the driven element. The gamma match for a thirty meter ‘VBeam’ will be several feet long, scaled up just as the antenna elements are.

I’m thinking of using 1 3/4″ cyclone fence ‘top rail’ for the elements, with 3/4″ copper tubing for the gamma match. There are lots of handy cast aluminum fixtures for cyclone fencing… End caps, brackets and clamps come to mind. I have used this material for antenna masts before, but this will be new to use it for the antenna itself.

With a good radial or groundplane system, this HF vertical beam array would work just as well on the ground, if not better. Note that the antenna elements are grounded to the building’s metal roof, which serves as an elevated groundplane.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

The perception that the future of amateur radio hangs upon recruiting kids and teenagers is way off base. Historically ( and today ) the youngest hams make up a tiny, insignificant minority within the ham radio population. - And there is absolutely no cause for alarm on this account.

There are some new hams that start off in the teen or preteen years but in almost every case, they go inactive in the late teens or early twenties as almost all of thier attention and financial resources go into establishing a family and home. This period of inactivity usually lasts for at least a decade, if not for life.

The exception to this are the small number group of younger hams in thier twenties and early thirties who make up a great majority of the whiners and ‘gimme gimme’ types, so vocal in criticising every aspect of the hobby. - They can hardly be called an asset because of this. In a general sense, we would be much better off if they would go inactive for a while, too. It would give them a few years to mature, get thier act together and grow up.

Most hams get involved in the hobby later in life, closer to the mid or late 30s when thier financial situation is more established and they have more free time on thier hands at home. These are the ones most likely to be strongly, actively involved in community service and hard-core DXing.

Another, larger group of new hams are those who are starting retirement or are looking forward to upcoming retirement. The kids are gone, thier finances are settled, and they have time to do things that require personal attention. This is most certainly the single most significant source of new hams.

Every now and then you will hear some moron who states a craven desire to see the “old guard die off”, as if the death of some of our older hams will somehow make room for a new batch of teenagers to become hams. The moronic logic here is that there can only be so many hams, so the older ones are somehow preventing young ones from becoming interested in the hobby.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that the “old guard” is constantly passing on, but thier ranks are also constantly being reinforced by cadres of new “old hams” who have become interested in the hobby around retirement age.

The ugly, moronic ill-wishes toward these amateurs has no basis in fact or reality. - The fact is that they are the heart of amateur radio, and probably always will be.

These are the facts of life concerning the issue of age and amateur radio. None of the trends mentioned here are likely to change any time soon, so try to get used to them.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Here is a bandwidth comparasin between a single HF PACKET signal and PACTOR III.

As you can see, a single PACTOR III station takes up just over five times as much bandwidth as an HF PACKET station does.

If there was only one of each type signal on the air, the above illustration would tell the whole story… Unfortunately this is not the case though, as both HF PACKET and PACTOR III are being used in networks intended to transport store-and-forward type messaging for many locations.

An essential and significant difference between HF PACKET and PACTOR III in this respect is illustrated below:

Here we are looking at a comparasin between five HF PACKET stations and five PACTOR III stations… Note the difference between PACKET’s ability to “stack vertically” as opposed to PACTOR III’s “horizintal spread”.

If there was only five of each type signal on the air, the above illustration would tell the whole story… Unfortunately this is not the case though, as both networks ( HF PACKET and WinLink ) serve many more locations than that.

There is not enough space here to illustrate this, but a dozen or more HF PACKET stations can “stack vertically” and operate with the width of a single signal ( 500 Hz. ) but to have a dozen PACTOR III stations “spread horizontally”, more than 31200 Hz. of spectrum would be occupied.

( Some space between the 2600 Hz. wide PACTOR III stations must be there, so they will not interfere with each other. )

Assuming that no more than a dozen HF PACKET stations will tend to “stack up” at a time, then we can take the 31200 Hz. figure for a dozen PACTOR III stations, divide it by the 500 Hz. that a dozen HF PACKET stations take up, and see how much more space PACTOR III takes up than HF PACKET in a general sense…

A network utilizing PACTOR III takes up 62.4 times as much spectrum as HF PACKET.

Since both networks carry store and forward type messages that are not time-critical, what we amateurs must ask ourselves is whether the speed increase that PACTOR III offers is really worth taking up 62.4 times as much spectrum, making it necessary to “horizontally spread” them all over the phone bands as opposed to HF PACKET, which works just fine within the narrow automated sub-bands and doesn’t crash anybody’s QSO.

Is WinLink really worth it?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

HF Packet, as it stands, is both functionally and technically superior to WinLink in every particular.

Both systems are being used to move ’store and forward’ type messaging, the very nature of which is not time-critical. By definition, a wait of an hour or more is typical before these kind of messages may be retrieved by any method. Longer waits are not unusual by any means. So while it is true that PACTOR III is faster than HF Packet, ( while taking up 6-7 times as much spectrum ) this additional speed is not the critical factor it is made out to be.

Both systems are designed to serve a large number of locations… HF Packet, being an AX25 application allows a dozen or more stations ( locations ) to share a single frequency slot at the same time in what is known as ‘vertical stacking’. Compare this sprectrally efficient system with PACTOR ( and any other TOR mode ) which cannot stack vertically and so must utilize ‘horizontal spreading’ instead, with each station located beside ( or spread out from ) the next one, taking up a great deal more spectrum in order to serve the same number of locations.

Add PACTOR’s significantly wider bandwidth to this equation, and it is easy to see why the WinLinkers are trying to gain access and control of virtually every bit of available HF spectrum while the PACKET networkers are content to efficiently operate within the narrow automated sub-bands, as they have done for decades with no problems.

Then there are issues of reliability and technical advancement to consider… The WinLink ‘network’ is designed around the STAR network topology that became obsolete for anything but home LANs in the late 1970’s. WinLink’s central server provides a single failure point that can ( and does ) bring down the entire network in the event of a minor difficulty. Last year for example, the entire WinLink ‘network’ went belly-up for a day or two as the result of a common email virus corrupting thier user base, which had to be re-established from scratch.

The Packet network utilizes the more modern and secure PARTIALLY-MESHED network topology that the Internet also uses, and because of this, there is no single failure-point within the network which can affect operation of the network as a whole. It is more technologically advanced than what WinLink utilises and it is also much more reliable.

Do a web-search on NETWORK TOPOLOGIES, then compare what is said about WinLink’s STAR topology with what is said about Packet’s ( and the Internet’s ) PARTIALLY-MESHED network topology. - You’ll see what I mean in short order.

So you have two networks attempting to do the same thing:

Packet is more advanced, more efficient, works just fine within the narrow autiomated sub-bands, is more reliable and historically causes no problems.

Compare that with WinLink’s use of a long-obsolete network topology that is far less efficient, unreliable in the extreme and which has already garnered WinLink a widespread reputation as a spectrum hog and QSO-crasher. - A reputation which will rapidly worsen if they are allowed to spread all over the phone bands and crash QSO’s as the ARRL proposes.

That’s why I say that HF Packet, as it stands, is both functionally and technically superior to WinLink in every particular.

When you consider the additional speed that Q15×25 mode brings to the Packet net ( a virtual 2500 baud ) and the even greater increment of speed that the development of AMP ( Amateur Multicast Protocol ) will give the Packet net for distributing messages addressed to “ALL”, then it is easy to see why the WinLink ‘network’ has a pretty firm grasp on the ‘hind titty’ position among ham radio store and forward messaging systems.

In other words, Packet is cool - and WinLink sux.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Although I am a hardcore digital enthusiast ( my HF rig has not had a microphone or key connected to it for close to ten years now ) - I can’t see any merit in a digital vs analog comparasin. - Most especially one where we are asked to say which is ‘better’ than the other.

Digital is new and different… Once the new wears off though and it become more developed, as it is sure to do, then we are only left with ‘different’.

The field of robotics is pretty well at the cutting edge of technology in a general sense, and it is there that we are seeing analog circuits performing functions that digital technique cannot match, even when the relative level of complexity and part count within the digital system is higher by several orders of magnitude. In other areas, digital circuitry has a definate edge.

You might as well ask, “Which are better, screwdrivers or pliers?”… Well, I guess that depends on what part of the job you are currently trying to do. To get the job done in an overall sense, you’d better have both of them.

One good rule of thumb to go by is that only a fool would attempt to create a legal haven or barrier relating to one technology or tool at the expense of another. Screwdrivers and pliers do not ‘compete’ because of thier inherent difference, and to attempt to legislate the use of one at the other’s expense is pretty effing stupid.

Cutting edge mathematics ( chaos theory and quantum mechanics ) suggest that analog systems hold much more promise than digital in the long run. The current fad that looks to digital at the expense of analog systems for the future is just that - a fad.

While it is true that digital systems are getting all the grease these days, once we get them working better so they do not squeak so much, I think it is reasonable to assume that our attention will start to wander to other areas. This is why it would be less than clever to attempt to legislate the use of one over the other now, or in the future.

Let’s just go ahead and leave all of the tools in the toolbox.

Even the idea of trying to push the use of one over the use of the other ( bogus though it may be ) can be an effective tool, providing the basis of a rough and ready intelligence test.

Charles, N5PVL

I used to have a girlfriend who managed a ranch in north Texas. She was OK, but she had this habit of sticking me with ‘problem’ horses when I drove out to visit with her.

One time she had this beautiful missouri foxtrotter, a black mare with a white star on her forehead and white ’stockings’. The horse was ‘push-button’ and would follow verbal commands. BUT!

The horse was also very skittish… She would twitch if the wind blew a tree branch, jump at any kind of noise and responded to the sight of a water puddle by rearing up and falling back on her butt. - I had to move quickly to keep from getting squished underneath her.

Back at the barn I told my friend about the horse’s behavior and her comment was, “That horse was looking for boogers!”

You pretty well tend to find what you look for, in life.

Hams who push deregulation are always ‘looking for boogers’, which goes far in explaining their outrage and discomfort over little nit-picky oddities of the regulatory structure that would bring up a yawning “So what?” from just about anybody else.

We are supposed to feel their pain when they can’t transmit whatever they want, wherever they want with no regard to the protections and structure our regulations provide, and with no regard for what other amateurs might be trying to do on and around that particular frequency.

Gee that’s tough, isn’t it? - Don’t you feel sorry for them?

I’ll step up here and say that my concern over their pain in this area can only be measured in sub-micro give-a-hoots.

I feel I can safely say that I share this sub-micro level of concern with the great majority of my fellow hams.

Most of us have no trouble understanding why deregulation is a really prime way to screw up, having Citizen’s Band as a glowing example of what one can expect from getting rid of those pesky, inconvenient rules and regulations.

Some of the arguements we keep hearing from advocates of deregulation are pretty silly… My favorite part is how they first demonstrate that they are unwilling to respect the opinions of the majority of amateurs, proving that they can’t play well with others - then they suggest gentlemen’s agreements as a substitute for those rules and regulations they find so difficult to work within. - The irony of this suggestion gets a giggle out if me, every time.

It seems to me that those who “just wanna be free!” would probably be most comfortable and find more success as freebanders or CB’ers instead of trying to do the same thing with a ham ticket, on the ham bands.

Yes, I am suggesting that the advocates of deregulation move on to CB, where thier clever theories are already realized.

Charles, N5PVL

AMP ( Amateur Multicast Protocol ) test transmission schedule for N5PVL:

10.133 MHz. LSB AMP @ 8-10 Watts

8:00am - 3:00pm CST ( With some slight variation on Sundays )

Mode Schedule:

• Sun, Mon ——– PSK63
• Tues, Wed —— QPSK31
• Thur, Fri, Sat — PSK31

Either Digipan or MixW will allow you to “read the mail” on these transmissions, in any of the three PSK modes being tested.

Info on Walt Fair Jr. W5ALT’s AMP protocol and the AltCast software can be found here.

Send a signal report, and I will return an alpha-copy of the AltCast Client software that automatically captures the files sent, and saves them onto your hard-drive.

For these tests, current bulletins from ARRL and USPacket will be sent, along with a text file describing AltCast, and an HTML version of the same info file.

All signal reports are greatly appreciated, even if you are not interested in testing the software. We are curious as to just how wide an area an 8-10 Watt PSK31 signal will effectively cover.

Note that these are alpha-test transmissions with new software and a new digital protocol that is still being developed.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL