"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William. I said that Iowa was the
first station that we contacted. You are making a huge presumption here
that it is the only station that we contacted. Do you really think that we
would contact one station, declare victory, then call it a day? You know
better than that. We made multiple contacts during the day as we switched
from band to band.

Next time you inadvertantly contact an amateur in another state, ask
him to phone patch you through to that state's EMA or State Police.
That at least would be worth noting.

Actually, not a bad idea; however, this was a function test of equipment in
preparation for an exercise later this month. When we activate that
exercise, we will be contacting those types of agencies directly (including
out of state) We didn't want to have to coordinate that contact in advance
because it would take away from the realism of the upcoming exercise and
give them a "heads up". Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

Which model HF radio did you get?

Kenwood TS 570D(s) and
Kenwood TM 261A (VHF)

Arnie -

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:42:46 -0500, Arnie Macy wrote:

Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

"Goofball, Goofball, this is Zoomer with a No Notice Test Message".

We used to just LOVE those...... ggg (The remote deskset was on
my desk....)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Retired and loving every minute of it....
Work was getting in the way of my hobbies

William wrote:


In other words, you tested that the radio worked. You could have done
that with a dummy load and not wasted that Iowa ham's time.

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Work on your SSB equipment some more. You couldn't reach Iowa.

Only God can improve atmospheric conditions. That's why we used CW.

Of course. SHARES uses CW all the time? Military HF radio?

Back a half century ago, the ACAN used SSB on a 24/7 basis as
primary mode of long-distance communications..."long" as in
500 to 8000 miles over water or land.

We
couldn't reach squat on SSB that day. Next test might show an improvement
in SSB capability. Sure hope so, it is our primary Ham mode.

You really ought to consult with Army Signal Corps folks on how
to do SSB on HF from true emergency condition locations. Ask
for "Nevis." :-)

Signal Corps has some neat portable-mobile-fixed relatively low-
power HF radios that Get Through on SSB. Hughes Aircraft
(Ground division) designed and made some of it in the 1980s.
You can really "fly" with some of that. :-)

Fort Gordon, GA. They're in the DSN directory. They're on the
Internet. Signal Corps center. Good smarts there.

Riiight...you got it through the bureaocracy. :-)

Is the General Accounting Office (GAO) staffed with radio experts?

Actually, they have some very knowledgeable folks in their tech area.
Thanks for asking.

You cannot answer a specific question with a specific answer?

Does the GAO have RADIO EXPERTS?

Ask your "Nevis."

LHA / WMD

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

The rest of Leonard's usual drivel snipped ...

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still using pejoratives to open a message?

"You are now working in the electronics industry too? Amazing."
_________________________________________________ _______

What? The amazing Leonard not familiar with current technology?

I'm familiar with current...and voltage...and lots of things in the
whole field of electronics (radio is a part of that whole). But,
electronics technology keeps advancing. I'm still learning and
I started learning about it 57 years ago.

I can measure current in many and different ways, including
non-intrusive means at DC, AC, and RF. Do you wish to know
more about current? Please consult an electronics text or the
application notes of some electronics instrument manufacturers.

I'm shocked.

Safety first...use proper precautions around live conductors.

Do not let your train of thought become derailed.

You mean to tell me that this lowly Amateur Radio Op knows more
about cutting edge technology than the Wizard of Electronics?

I'm not a "wizard" nor have I claimed to be. After retiring (only from
regular hours of work) from a career as an electronics design
engineer, I've accumulated some amount of knowledge and
experience in several disciplines of electronics. I'm still learning
and working and designing and not afraid of jumping into venues
populated (as this one) by a number of egocentric amateurs with
delusions of expertise, trying to put down others who have the
actual experience and knowledge. Your sarcasm (with overtones
of spite if not spittle) is noted.

Say it ain't so, Leonard.

I am trying to discuss subjects in here, not personalities. People
like yourself don't want to do that, are intent on promoting only
themselves and their alleged expertise in communications.

This particular thread was another's egoboo challenge about some
NCVEC petition (actually two of them, the second only a plan).
To be gracious and civil, you could have at least recognized that.
Instead, you started in with your first public posting in here after a
long absence as nothing but a direct personal attack on myself.

If you wish to do nothing but make personal attacks, you are free
to start other threads with nothing but personal condemnation of
whomever you choose to target. This newsgroup is open to all and
not moderated; not moderated except in the minds of some PCTAs.

The immediate future for U.S. amateur radio is some kind of change
in licensing regulations which may or may not eliminate the
International Morse Code test from examinations. That immediate
future also has the spectre of wide-range, wide-bandwidth noise
on most of HF through low VHF from Access BPL. In essence,
Access BPL implementation may cause EVERYONE's HF through
low VHF receiver to kiss their sensitivity ratings goodbye...the QRM
may prohibit any sort of low-level reception by anyone in an urban
or suburban location.

If you wish to continue personal attacks on individuals just to ease
your perceived past woundings in this newsgroup, go ahead. Such
seems petty and vindictive on your part.

There's a very distinct possibility of an emergency in radio reception
quality of the future that isn't coming from overt attackers on the US
or any terrorists wanting any religious jihad or any imaginary threats
to Homeland Security. It exists in the homeland itself.

It is more constructive to fight against threats as a concerted group
instead of playing verbal paintball of individual on individual for petty
personal reasons. Your choice.

LHA / WMD

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

I don't even remember anything about Mark. But I do remember Steve
getting his hemorrhoid tied up in knots over him.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William. I said that Iowa was the
first station that we contacted. You are making a huge presumption here
that it is the only station that we contacted. Do you really think that we
would contact one station, declare victory, then call it a day? You know
better than that. We made multiple contacts during the day as we switched
from band to band.

Presumption? Perhaps.

If I dial home, and I get Iowa, then my comms failed.

You need to have a goal before you ever switch the radio on.

Let's say that your goal is the Military Police desk at Ft. Riley,
Kansas.

You get on the radio and "Viola," you got Iowa. Great. Good first
step. Ask that Iowa amateur to dial the Military Police desk at Ft.
Riley, Kansas (333-444-5555). Hmmmmm, who's gonna pay the $0.07/per
minute charges? Iowa ham won't do it. Iowa was a failure. Try
Nebraska if prop holds.

Make up your own scenario. Don't count off this ex-IG augmentee to
create your exercise scenario for you.

Next time you inadvertantly contact an amateur in another state, ask
him to phone patch you through to that state's EMA or State Police.
That at least would be worth noting.

Actually, not a bad idea; however, this was a function test of equipment in
preparation for an exercise later this month. When we activate that
exercise, we will be contacting those types of agencies directly (including
out of state)

OK, you are going to contact the EMA and State Police *_directly_*
with amateur radio? Cool. How are you going to do that?

We didn't want to have to coordinate that contact in advance
because it would take away from the realism of the upcoming exercise and
give them a "heads up".

Right. No prior coordination. But...

Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

No.

1. You state a requirement for them (your ham volunteers) to be able
to do such things. Your MOU is a place to state broad requirements.
The SOP or Instructions cover the specifics.

2. You train them to do such things.

3. You then give them a no warning exercise scenario where they have
to do what they (1) have a requirement to do, and (2) have been
trained to do.

That is how it's done in the military. Really.

Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

Which model HF radio did you get?

Kenwood TS 570D(s) and
Kenwood TM 261A (VHF)

Excellent choices. Simple and capable.

bb

"William" wrote in part ...

If I dial home, and I get Iowa, then my comms failed. You need to have a
goal before you ever switch the radio on.

Our goal was to check the functionality of the HF gear. We made multiple
contacts on multiple bands -- making contacts throughout the day. Those
were the parameters of the test. Test successful. We have written MOAs
with the stations that we intend to contact during the exercise, so they
completely understand the nature of the "no-warning" scenario. We also ran
functionality tests on the VTC/SAT and VOIP equipment. It was a busy day.

As you know, all major exercises have an extensive OPORD that directs us
before anything begins. Ours has been in place for months. All T's
crossed.


Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

We do not use MARS for multiple reasons. All of our ops are civil service
and FCC Licensed Hams. This gives us much greater latitude in the
equipment, modes, and frequencies available to us. The EM operation is a
completely civilian one. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before. Of
course, we had to clear the frequency use with the folks at the installation
DOIM, but that was just a formality.

Arnie -

In article , JJ
writes:

In other words, you tested that the radio worked. You could have done
that with a dummy load and not wasted that Iowa ham's time.

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.

Ask your Nevis.

:-)

LHA / WMD

"JJ" wrote ...

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.
__________________________________________________ ________

I was going to mention that, JJ. But I think William probably realized that
after he wrote his response. This was not just a check of the "HF radio"
but of the entire EM comms system. Our MICP is run by a gas generator, and
part of the test was to see if we could run "all" of our equipment at the
same time without a drop in available regulated power. Test successful
there as well.

Arnie -

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Rest of drivel snipped (as usual)

I'm not a "wizard" nor have I claimed to be. After retiring (only from
regular hours of work) from a career as an electronics design
engineer, I've accumulated some amount of knowledge and
experience in several disciplines of electronics. I'm still learning
and working and designing and not afraid of jumping into venues
populated (as this one) by a number of egocentric amateurs with
delusions of expertise, trying to put down others who have the
actual experience and knowledge. Your sarcasm (with overtones
of spite if not spittle) is noted.
__________________________________________________ _______

So, bottom line is that you do NOT know what I am talking about. I guess
this accounts for your reclama that you are still learning. As to actual
experience -- in this area, I obviously have more than you. But I'm sure
you would never be able to bring yourself to the point of admitting that.
After all, you are the GREAT Leonard. Master of the 1950s "current".

Arnie -