<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/15/2023 7:07 PM, Michael Ford
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834212079.1687580.1702685233524@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydpd1729d21yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Hi Stephen,</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">It's great to see
experimentation in amateur radio, including the rise of APRS
on VARA HF over the last few months.</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>However, given the
FCC's current review of the 60m band and its allocations for
amateurs, I'm wondering how wise it is to perform this
experiment on 60m and whether it might jeopardize the
availability of this resource.</span> Here are some things
I wonder about in this context:<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">* With your TinyTrack 3 and
with UIView, how are you ensuring that the frequency is clear
before these stations transmit on their cycles, especially
where amateur radio is a secondary use of the 60m band?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The same way anyone else using 60M does. I have a monitor
speaker on the FT-891 -- I can hear anything/everything going on
on the channel and can stop my transmissions at any time. </p>
<p>By using manually-initiated beaconing. The TinyTrack has a pin
for a manually-initiated transmission. It was originally intended
for "Mic-E" burst-on-unkey for voice transmissions on VHF. I have
connected a push-button to this pin to fire off a transmission on
demand, whenever I want. The Mic-E setup would be uniquely well
suited for 60 meters EMCOMMS operations, as on two meters, since
60 meters is the only HF band where voice and data can be on the
same frequency. Imagine every unit in a disaster net on 60 being
able to precisely report their exact location to net control at
the end of each voice transmission. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834212079.1687580.1702685233524@mail.yahoo.com">
<div class="ydpd1729d21yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">* Does it make sense to tie
up one of the five available channels on 60m for 4-1/2 hours?
I think the same question would be asked if it were an SSB
ragchew. Do you have the ability to know if someone else
needs to use the channel and give way?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>1) YES. I have a monitor speaker on the FT-891 -- I can hear
anything/everything going on on the channel and can stop my
transmissions at any time. </p>
<p>2) The volume of traffic on 60M is very low, especially in the
daytime.</p>
<p>3) The effective radiated power of 50 watts into a hamstick-type
mobile antenna is very low - probably less than 2 watts. Any
fixed station with a half-way decent antenna would have no trouble
talking over me if needed. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834212079.1687580.1702685233524@mail.yahoo.com">
<div class="ydpd1729d21yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">* What's the determination as
to whether this is a station under local control (allowed on
60m) or under automatic control (not allowed on 60m)?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Because I am in the driver's seat (literally) less than two feet
from the Panasonic Toughbook CF-51 mobile laptop generating the
transmissions. The home station is a RECEIVE-only igate - it is
not generating any transmissions at all. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834212079.1687580.1702685233524@mail.yahoo.com">
<div class="ydpd1729d21yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">* Does this experiment lead
others to start using automatic APRS beacons and/or
digipeaters on 60m?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>No automatic transmissions or digipeaters expected or
encouraged. Digipeaters are strongly discouraged on any HF band,
since: </p>
<ol>
<li>Propagation on HF is so unpredictable and variable that digis
are not a useful way of expanding predictable coverage, as they
are on VHF. <br>
<br>
</li>
<li>DIgipeating automatically cuts the channel capacity in half,
since the original transmission and the digipeat each take up a
time slot. <br>
<br>
</li>
<li>Transmissions are occupying a regional or continental area on
HF, compared to perhaps a county-size area on VHF.</li>
</ol>
<p>I am only trying to encourage manually-originated beacons, and
MIc-E "tail-gating" of voice transmissions.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834212079.1687580.1702685233524@mail.yahoo.com">
<div class="ydpd1729d21yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">* <span><span>Would 40m or
80m be a better choice of band for this experiment,
especially where they have subbands for the use of
automatic stations?</span></span><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Again no automatic stations are involved. <br>
</p>
<p>As mentioned above, 60m is uniquely well suited to this
application due to voice/data possible on the same frequency. <br>
</p>
<p>The fixed-frequency channelized operation on 60 meters is unique
on HF. Makes it easier for users to be on the "exact frequency". <br>
</p>
<p>80 meters is plagued by more noise and lack of standard channels
(so other un-related stations often are transmitting randomly
"half-off" your channel. Perhaps most importantly, simple HF
mobile antennas like Ham Sticks are even MORE horribly inefficient
on 75/80 than they are on 60. (The 7-8-foot Hamstick whip is a
shorter proportion of the natural full quarter-wave-length on 80
than it is on 60. )</p>
<p>40 meters often has huge skip zones. Especially at night, you
can't hear anything CLOSER than 500-700 miles away. </p>
<p>60 meters has excellent NVIS propagation for 0-300 miles or so
coverage most of the time. (I am interested in state-wide or
regional coverage -- not DX! )</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<hr width="100%" size="2">Stephen H. Smith wa8lmf (at) aol.com <br>
Skype: WA8LMF<br>
EchoLink: Node # 14400 [Think bottom of the 2-meter band]<br>
Home Page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wa8lmf.net">http://wa8lmf.net</a><br>
<br>
"Studio B" Ham Shack on Wheels<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://WA8LMF.net/Aliner"><http://WA8LMF.net/Aliner></a><br>
<br>
-- APRS over VARA --<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wa8lmf.net/VARAforAPRS.htm"><http://wa8lmf.net/VARAforAPRS.htm></a><br>
<br>
60-Meter APRS! HF NVIS APRS Igate Now Operating<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://WA8LMF.net/map/"><http://WA8LMF.net/map/></a><br>
<br>
Flying Digipeater!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://WA8LMF.net/FlyingDigi"><http://WA8LMF.net/FlyingDigi></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>