It’s the end of June and that means ARRL Field Day 2015. Squidette (VA3CEW) and I deployed to the Outlet Beach (FN13jv, right beside Sandbanks Provincial Park) to operate a Field Day station as VE3EEE.
We went out with the standard VE3EEE portable pack:
Cold and miserable with drizzle for basically the entire time. That was not fun at all. Nevertheless, we did have shelter, so it wasn’t the end of the world.
There were geomagnetic storms earlier in the week, but they had pretty much abated. K-index bounced between 1 and 3. 15m down to 80m seemed to be open. I listened on 10 and didn’t hear anything, so I didn’t bother with 6m.
We made 72 contacts between 40m, 20m, and 15m, almost all digital although we threw in a few CW and Phone contacts just for good measure.
We also took the time to drive across the county to visit the Quinte ARC Field Day site in Ameliasburg. It was rainy and miserable there too, but they had a great setup with 4 radios going!
I’ve been reading a fair bit about emergency communications (EMCOMM) and amateur radio. Nominally, EMCOMM is why amateur radio exists – the service is there, hypothetically, to be able to provide backup communication paths when infrastructure fails. Certainly, for many years, that was a pretty valid position and amateur radio filled that niche very well.
But time has marched on, and with it has marched both requirements and technology. In my considered opinion, amateur radio EMCOMM is likely to come up short when the situation is dire. This is something amateur radio can overcome, but getting past the shortcomings is going to require a new way of thinking for a lot of amateur radio EMCOMM enthusiasts.
The Use Case
It is first necessary to consider what role amateur radio is going to fill in an emergency situation.
The goal of EMCOMM is to get timely, accurate communication outside of the disaster zone to a place where the regular communications infrastructure is not damaged. Barring an asteroid strike that makes a crater the size of Texas and destroys an entire continent, that communication is not going to need to be more than tens of kilometers, maybe small hundreds.
That brings about my first EMCOMM observation: HF is probably not going to factor in an EMCOMM situation because it’s awkward and unnecessary. Awkward because it needs long, difficult antennas, and propagation is unreliable. In the event of a very wide-scale disaster, then perhaps, but generally, it will be quicker, easier, and more reliable to use VHF and UHF radio to get messages out of a disaster zone because the equipment is small and much easier to come by.
Modern “first responders” – police, fire, military, para-military and medical all have reliable, effective short-range communication technology and infrastructure. Their comms channels are robust and intended to work in adverse situations. For the most part, amateur radio will play almost no part in assisting these people. It’s worth noting that, military notwithstanding, none of these essential services uses HF radio much or at all.
Secondary assistance services are much more likely to require amateur radio assistance: Red Cross, various “civilian” disaster relief agencies and so on. These are important people in any disaster, but they’re likely not well equipped in the communications department and could benefit greatly from amateur radio help. Again, however, they’re going to want to move information outside the disaster zone, and that distance is not likely to be “around the world” because there are many better ways to do that than HF radio.
I’ve tried to figure out what sort of info these agencies might want to send, and the most obvious one I can come up with is a casualty list. This is a good one because it seems both likely, and highly useful to an agency like the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders, or some similar group. There might also be traditional short “Hi Mom! We’re OK!” messages, but those are generally easy to send by any convenient means.
So what does a casualty list take? Let’s consider a short list: 1500 people are at a shelter inside a disaster zone, and the Red Cross needs to send that list 75 km away to the coordination centre. The list contains “phone book” info: name, (former) address, plus gender and date of birth. If we figure the name field at 20 characters, address at 20 characters, gender as 1 character and birth date as 6 characters, and an indicator for unharmed/deceased/injured/missing of a single character, a list of 1500 people is about 72000 characters, or 70 kB, or in CW terms, 14400 words.
Right off the bat, you can see one problem. That short casualty list, using 4 operators blasting CW at 30 WPM non-stop, will take a full 2 hours to send and still require coordinating the output of the 4 CW streams at the far end. That is not acceptable in 2015. That same list, sent by D-Star at 9600 bps, takes less than 90 seconds. Even at 1200 bps D-Star it will clock in less than 10 minutes. This brings me to the second observation about EMCOMM: Morse Code is not going to be used very much if at all in an EMCOMM situation because it is too slow to carry any significant amount of useful information.
What does this mean?
The general use case of casualty lists, supply requisitions and similar information simply can’t be sent by morse code or even by voice. Modern EMCOMM needs to move small and medium amounts of data over those tens of kilometers. Possibly even image data. This simply cannot be done with traditional “Morse Code and HF” thinking, and not even with “packet” thinking.
EMCOMM groups have to start thinking about the objective, and they have to start acquiring the infrastructure and training to be able to provide useful communications. This is what I think all EMCOMM groups need to have as a capability:
1. Enough available equipment to set up a VHF and/or UHF data link that can cover a distance of about 100 km, AND link to the neighbouring EMCOMM group – effectively able to form cells of about 50-100 km in radius to be able to get communications away from the disaster zone.
2. Enough man-portable (i.e. HT or similar) equipment to be able to deploy operators quickly and keep them highly mobile. This would include easily erected directional antenna equipment.
3. The ability to move data with a speed of at least 9600 bps over the coverage area. Even faster would be better. That may mean we all have to start thinking of better ways of moving data. Guys, it’s not 1980 any more. Even 9600 is glacially slow by modern standards, and information is king in a disaster situation, but at that speed you can move decent sized text blocks around. If amateur radio can’t move enough good quality information quickly and accurately, amateur radio will be bypassed.
4. The ability to interface with existing communications channels (e.g. the internet). I assure you, the guys who can get internet connectivity into a disaster area are going to be viewed as heroes of communications because internet is *THE* communication channel used by every organization everywhere. Also, being able to patch into other networks like the phone system and drag a level of that connectivity into a disaster zone would be really helpful.
5. This is a pie-in-the-sky thing, but I’ll put it out there: The ability to assist with, organize, and direct the communications infrastructure of others – in short: trained operators who can free up firefighters, police, and maybe even soldiers by operating THEIR communications infrastructure while they go out and do the nasty work.
EMCOMM needs to look at the now and forward, not back in history. It’s time to drop HF and morse, and build up robust, portable digital communications for emergencies. That is what will be needed when the worst happens, and that’s where the expertise of highly trained radio amateurs is going to be most effectively deployed.
[This article was originally published 20 Nov, 2011. I have recently updated it for 2015]
I get asked this a lot, particularly when I’m working at VE3JW. New and prospective radio amateurs want to know what equipment they need to start off. Since I’ve never really written about that, and it seemed like good article material, I figured I’d give it a go.
Built or Bought?
Unless you are already an avid builder, I suggest buying your first radio(s). Building can be fun, and if you already have the skills, it’s a great way to participate in the hobby. But if you don’t have the skills, it can be a frustrating way to start.
Nobody should take this to mean that I don’t respect building/tinkering skills. Quite the opposite actually, I think every radio amateur should develop such skills… but I don’t think it’s a good place for the new amateur to start unless he’s already into that sort of thing.
New or Used?
Here’s something controversial… the new/used question. I’ll state right up front, that I think a new or prospective amateur should be buying new, not used. That’s a generalization, of course, and here’s the exception: Buy used if you know the seller well and have great trust for the seller. By “know the seller well” I don’t mean “some dude at the local club meeting”… I mean “this is the guy who personally mentored me through the process and has been a close personal friend for many years.”
There are two reasons I recommend buying new:
So you’ve decided to buy a new radio!
Good for you. You need to look at what you want to do with it and how much you want to spend. There are two general classes of radio: VHF / UHF, and HF, and I’ll look at them separately. I’ll use Radioworld as the reference for prices, because I have the most experience with them, but there are many fine vendors of equipment, both online and with store-fronts.
VHF and UHF
When you think about VHF and UHF equipment, you’re generally thinking about access to the local repeaters, or perhaps satellite work if you’re going to jump right into that. You’re probably looking for an FM set with various features. If you want to do APRS, that’s something else to consider: does the radio support it natively or will you have to acquire/build a TNC?
So how much do you want to spend to get on VHF and UHF?
Lots of people have had good experiences with inexpensive handheld radios from China, acquired over eBay. The radios come fully equipped and the prices are usually below $100 per set. There are many band configurations, and the new amateur can get 2m, 220 MHz, 70 cm, and more. For the most part, these are straight FM radios, so if you wanted to use them for APRS, you’ll need to build or acquire your own interface. If you want to get on the air inexpensively, this is a way to go.
It’s also a good way to get into satellite work cheaply. A pair of these (one for VHF, one for UHF) and an antenna you can build for a few dollars and you can work the FM birds, including the International Space Station.
$150 – $300
This is a low-mid price for a name-brand handheld radio, and a low-end for some mobile sets. The Yaesu FT-60, VX-3, VX-6 and the Alinco DJ-V57 are fine radios. I lean toward dual-band handhelds because limiting yourself to 2 meters is, well, limiting. Depending where you live there may well be plenty of good repeaters on UHF, and if you just like to chat among friends, UHF has a lot less interference from commercial services. There are Luddites who will say 2m is all you need, but in my experience, those are people who don’t actually use the radio much.
In this price range you’re getting into the high-end handhelds and low-end mobile rigs. If you plan to drive around a lot, a mobile rig is probably a good call. You can mount it on a quick-disconnect mount and move it in the house and use it like a base-station, thereby saving the cost of having a house rig and a car rig. Mobiles generally have more power since they are intended to be used on the road/outside and that may be an important feature if you wish to get into some kinds of VHF and UHF work. Again, I recommend dual-band because 2 meters simply doesn’t cut it in an urban area due to interference.
For handhelds, take a look at the Kenwood TH-D72, and Yaesu VX-8 series. Both are full-featured, multi-band handhelds with APRS capability. Before anyone writes a comment, I do not recommend blowing the money on an Icom D-Star handheld. For what they cost, frankly, you can get a better handheld, or the Icom mobile D-Star radio. I consider the D-Star handheld a waste of money… there are simply better deals out there.
For mobiles, there’s many good choices in this price range. My personal favourite is the Kenwood D-710 and I have used this family of radios for a long time. The 710 supports packet and APRS natively, which is a real bonus. It also is full duplex, meaning that you can operate FM satellites with it without having to buy a second radio. Other good mobile sets are: Kenwood TM-V71, Yaesu FT-7900, FT-8800 and the Icom ID-880H which has D-Star capability (and is cheaper than the previously mentioned Icom handheld).
If you have over $600 to spend on a starter radio, I suggest looking at mobiles and bases with greater features, particularly if you also have HF privileges (Canadian Basic + or Advanced).
If you want an HF rig, you’re going to need more than $1000 to spend, and your best bet, in my opinion, is the Yaesu FT-857. It is an all-band, all-mode mobile radio, up to 100 watts output. It’s small, it can be mounted for quick moving between your car and your house, does HF, VHF and UHF in all modes, and costs around $1000. It’s not as awesome as some $13000 uber-HF set, but it’s a good starter radio, it’s pretty durable and it does have some advanced features. No other major vendor has a comparable radio for a comparable price.
Some people may tell you that the FT-817 is as good a deal because it’s cheaper. That’s true, it is cheaper, but it’s only 5 watts. And while it’s true that 5 watts is enough to work the world, if you’re a new amateur, the 13 dB of extra power in the 857 is going to make your early experiences better. There’s nothing wrong with QRP, but I think that’s a place to go AFTER you’ve got experience and have a good idea what you’re doing, and have established good, effective antennas.
If you get the 857, you may not need to buy a handheld, so there’s some potential cost-offset there.
You’ll need to set money aside for accessories (yes, hams accessorize) for your radio, be it a handheld or a base station. You’ll need to have money aside for antenna(s), cabling and possibly power supply.
Money spent on good antennas is better than money spent on extra power. Don’t pay extra for a 200W radio when there’s a cheaper model with 100W. The extra 3 dB won’t make a difference in most situations.
How you spend your first few amateur radio dollars is going to give you the taste experience with amateur radio that will determine whether this is the hobby for you. Don’t overspend, but don’t go on the cheap. Buying crappy equipment will discourage you, so try to stick to vendors who back their products up (or in the case of the Chinese handhelds, sell them so inexpensively that it doesn’t matter so much). Once you have some experience under your belt, you can upgrade your equipment to better suit your need and desires.
Back in 2008, I had an article here about live web-cams that were pointed at the aurora. I’ve been noticing hits on the old page (the web never forgets!) and given that is a subject that interests me a lot, I thought I’d make a new article.
In the 6 years since I posted the original article, there has been growth in the number of aurora-pointed web cams. Today, you can watch the aurora from various places in Europe and Canada. The southern aurora doesn’t really have a camera, presumably because it’s rare in New Zealand, and bringing internet to Antarctica is likely too expensive to waste on such a camera.
In any case, here are some links for looking at northern lights:
All three of these seem to be right up to date.
So if you live in an area that’s too temperate/tropical to see an aurora, there are plenty of online opportunities! Enjoy!
The title topic comes up here and there, and I’m often asked about it on the air, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to detail, once and for all, why I have zero interest in ARRL’s Logbook of the World.
To be fair, it does what it does and based on the number of users, it does it reasonably well – you install their software, jump through their hoops, and you can submit your logs in a way that ARRL will accept for award credit. At that level, I have no complaint with the system.
However, Logbook of the World has a number of shortcomings that are sufficiently off-putting that cause me to lose all interest in the system.
1. It’s great for one or two callsigns, but becomes an ever increasing gluteal pain if you operate lots of special event and other callsigns.
Yes, if you have multiple callsigns, you need a separate cryptographic certificate for each additional callsign. That’s extra files you have to keep track of, extra things to check that you have properly configured before you submit logs, extra things to get deleted/munged if you have a computer failure. It’s also wholly unnecessary – with a database that’s even half-decently designed, one should be able to register once with a primary call and use that cryptographic signature with other calls associated with that particular user. In fact, that’s pretty much the way public key cryptography was DESIGNED to be used, but the ARRL chose not to do it that way.
2. It’s “pretend” security, making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill. What security it provides is unnecessary.
Public Key cryptography – the driving engine behind LotW security is intended to provide two levels of security. First, the radio amateur identifies himself to the certificate issuer satisfactorily. A digital certificate is issued and through the magic of mathematics, whenever the amateur uses the certificate to sign a message, it can be verified that that specific certificate was used. In order to say that an identity is verified, however, one must have assurance that the certificate has not been shared. So although I might jump through ARRL’s identity hoops, I could share my certificate around deliberately… or because it sits as a file on my computer, a malicious person could steal it from my hard drive. Unless the certificate is protected at some level, it offers little or no assurance that it is being used by the intended person. That is why serious systems that use public key cryptography store the certificate in a smart card or similar device – something the proper owner can carry with them and can’t be easily hacked. Yes, the owner could share it around, still but when it’s used he can’t say “well someone hacked it.”
Additionally, it is important that the issuance of certificates cannot be subverted in some way. In particular, for non-US operators, you need only send a real-looking copy of a licence, and a copy of some other official-looking document to verify your identiy. If we assume that ARRL awards are something important enough to try and get by undeserving individuals, it’s probably fair to assume that faking these two simple documents would require only a few minutes of time on the internet and with a program like MSPaint of Photoshop. Therefore, the identity value of the cryptographic certificate is precisely zero by any measure. In fact, ARRL’s identification system is no better than eQSL, and arguably worse (eQSL can at least verify you have access to the mailing address you provide).
But… the certificate is also used to protect the submission in transit. Yes, the traffic is encrypted, but all that does is prevent it from being read by an interceptor (no value, not sensitive info), or modified by an interceptor (theoretically possible, but there would be MUCH easier ways to generate fake QSO records). I might accept this as a valid security measure if the ARRL could produce documentation indicating that they have done a Threat and Risk Assessment and determined that log information is at risk from this kind of attack. These are amateur radio QSO records, not government secrets.
In short, encrypting the records with public key cryptography is like swatting a mosquito by exploding an atomic bomb.
Looking at it another way: why don’t you put a 10 meter fence, a moat and a minefield around your house? You’d probably almost never get broken into, that would be certain. Odds are you don’t go to this extreme because the level of security isn’t justified by the level of risk. And even if you did put a 10 meter fence with a moat and minefield, you wouldn’t put a bridge over the whole thing right to your door. Public key cryptography is that fence/moat/minefield, and the slack authentication and identification process to get a certificate is that bridge.
Use of certificates also costs money. The certificates have to be maintained, they expire, people lose their passwords, they get compromised, they get lost, and all these problems are dumped on the certificate issuer to sort out. That costs time, and time is money. Having considerable experience in the specific field of PKI management, it would not be unreasonable for about 15-25% of certificates to be turned over in any given year just due to lost passwords and compromised certificates – not counting expired certificates and new issues. ARRL pays for that, which means that somewhere, users pay for it.
3. I have to install software on my machine.
Ok, this one is nit-picky, but there is no reason that anyone should have to install software to do these submissions. Even the certificates could be used through a java applet. The whole system is so old-tech. I’m not interested in installing and maintaining a piece of software so I can use pretend security to submit my logs when they can already be submitted automatically from my logging software to eQSL, HRDLog and other places.
4. ARRL charges LotW users for using LotW contacts in award applications.
Users of LotW are charged 25 cents (US) per LotW contact submitted for an award. This is probably related to the costs I mentioned in point 2. And even though that’s not much, it does add $25.00 to the cost of a DXCC if you do it all through LotW. Think about it – you’re paying ARRL for the privilege of saving THEM from sorting through your cards and proof. YOU ARE PAYING TO MAKE THEIR JOB EASIER – not yours, theirs. If anything, they should be reducing the charges for the award, but as noted above, operating a public key infrastructure costs money and they have to get it back somewhere.
More to the point, I like paper cards anyway, and I use paper cards, so why would I want to sink effort into a system that only matters for ARRL awards when I meet their award requirements for free with no extra work on my part?
I think I have laid out, in sufficient detail, why I don’t have interest in participating in the Logbook of the World. I hope it’s clear enough for everyone to understand. Please understand that I harbour no ill-will toward the ARRL or LotW users… If LotW works for you, that’s awesome – enjoy it.
However, since I am regularly asked why I am not interested in LotW, I felt it would be worthwhile to post the reasons here and then refer to them later so I don’t have to type the same thing over and over.
[edit 2014: I did finally sign up for LotW on my primary callsign late last year. I upload about twice a month. My return rate appears to be less than eQSL or paper, so despite all the bleating about how awesome LotW is, it’s actually not as good as eQSL or paper, at least for me. I’ll guess that maybe CW or phone people get more hits through this method.]
[edit 2017: In 2017, an interesting technology is arising – Quantum Computing. If the purpose of certificates in LotW is security, then be warned… in a decade, give or take, maybe less, quantum computers will destroy public key cryptography, and the “security” of LotW will be truly non-existent.]