mewcomm

When Short Wave Listening Still Mattered

On April 18/19 of 1995, there were two significant events in world history.  One was the machete slaughter of some 2000 (mostly women and children) in the Kibeho refugee camp of Rwanda. Only 24 hours later the bombing  of a U.S. government building killing 300+ civilians in Oklahoma City by a single person.

 
Most Americans main source of news in the US was and remains television. (at least for now) And during that spring week in 1995, the American Networks broadcast near non-stop Oklahoma stories about the 300+ persons that were murdered by an armed militia sympathizer, Timothy McVeigh.  Little else was mentioned on the still dominant evening news casts of the big three.

Like many Hams, at heart I'm an SWL.  It is where most of us were introduced to the "magic" of radio.  And also like many hams, I have a bedside short wave radio that I listen to a couple of times a week. And so it was, by late in the week during that spring of 95, I tuned across the BBC's World News Feed for the 8:00pm broadcast.  And there for the first 20 minutes of the program, I was exposed to the world beyond the parochial interests of the American news organizations. There I learned for the first time of the brutal murders that spawned a week of chaos and blood thirsty killing throughout Rwanda.  The scale of the deaths in Rwanda paled the Oklahoma  City event.  And the fresh BBC reporting was mesmerizing when compared to the insular American coverage by commercial networks.

Now recall that Marc Andresson's Netscape Navigator was only in Version 1.22 by the spring of 1995. The Web was still in it's infancy. Internet connected mobile devices were some years away.  Even TV news still mattered.  And so did Short Wave Radio broadcasts. 

As the wireless-net connected world nears ubiquity, and despite the reduced number of short wave broadcasts, to me, Short Wave Listening still matters.  Enjoy it while you can.

In the 'analog era' they called it theft.

Cruising Google news, I stumble upon a Gizmodo  blurb with a direct rip off of a celebrated Winston Churchill quote in the first sentence. The practice of plagiarism is wide spread though efforts are being made daily to discredit the "permission" culture.  Proponents of the "remix"of content and "mashups'  use intellectual "pretzel logic" (thank you Steely Dan) to justify their actions.    Google's Open Source Program manager  claims such sharing ("stealing"?)  will "make the world a better place for us all" [Sometimes these Net utopians make  me gag] The intellectual rationale for this is led by distinguished Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig who founded the 'Creative Commons" legal framework to justify the taking of other people's ideas. "Lessig presents this as a desirable ideal and argues, among other things, that the health, progress, and wealth creation of a culture is fundamentally tied to this participatory remix process". And others have pushed this concept to absurd feel good lengths. 

I won't engage these zealots. But I don't think even Professor Lessig would accept a direct rip-off quote from one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century. Would he?

 

 

How to make Ham Radio "Greener"!

As the  world watches Copenhagen, many Ham radio operators around the world contribute to disproportionate carbon emissions.  Below a proposal to change that.

If there's one issue that is constantly before us it is the green energy movement. Nuclear power is now being reconsidered by former foes, Bio fuels, Solar, Geo thermal alternatives are being touted as never before. Sun, AMD, Microsoft and Intel are part of the "Eco Forum". The name reveals their mission. Dell/HP/Google and MS are actively working to reduce power consumption in their massive data centers. "Green" planning and implementation is now mainstream in IT, the auto industry, construction, transportation and government.

In Ham radio The QRPers were (arguably) the first "Green" hams. They advocate (with rightful pride) that low power can "work the world." The ARRL has always promoted the dictum of using the minimum power necessary to communicate. And more than a few hams have creatively employed "green" energy devices to power their radios.

I believe most hams would say yes. That we should use "green" operational practices and equipment configurations. The ARRL has long history of promoting "Green" practices and energy use and deserves much credit in this regard. Yet more can be done.

So where to start? With the low hanging fruit, of course! I suggest to you that a radical reduction in the use of RF Power amplifiers by hams is the first place to begin. (A 2000 to 3000+ volt power supply with its attendant electrical requirements and heat generation is ludicrous for amateur radio communications.)

How to get there? Tax Amplifier Use

Government has long used the "sin" tax to reduce consumption. Tobacco and alcohol are heavily taxed. Conversely energy efficient devices are granted federal tax credits to promote “green” use. In order to reduce amplifier use, Ameritron, Alpha, Tokyo, and others should have a stiff "Green" fee placed on their amplifier products. (With these levies going to "Green" ham radio activities and education).

The ARRL should issue a Green Manifesto and call for a moratorium on ALL amplifier use by league members and disallow their use in any league sponsored event. Further, QST magazine should drop all ads for amplifier products.

Members of the league should voluntarily (and responsibly) get rid of their amps. A "carbon cleansing" if you will. And show your community with pride that you're helping reduce not only carbon pollution but RFI!

Smokers are persona non grata in many places, to liter is unlawful, SUV's are everyone's example of excess, some insurance companies penalize "smokers" and the "obese' through higher premiums. Should not ham radio use analogous tactics to become "greener"?

Yes, these tactics appear harsh. But Ham radio is not a culture or group known for embracing change. The hobby should be subjected to "Shock and Awe". In short, "they just don't get it"!

Now I confess...one of the great highs in low band Amateur Radio is/was hearing the "CLANG" of the amp relay kick in (well the old amps anyway) and seeing all meters swing to the right as your rig pours RF maximus into the ether...and then to hear your report as "Wow, you're 40 over!" But in 2009 such operational behavior seems...so analog. So yesterday. "Brute Force" communication is passé.

The Public Safety/ARES types are legitimate users of heavy amps. But contesters, DXers and the 160/75/40 and 20 mtr, "RF bullies" can no longer ignore their inefficient (and some would say irresponsible) use of power. It's time to move on. One-hundred watts or less on any hf band is enough for ham communications.

With amateur radio topology now including multiple modes and paths from end to end, the rationale for high power is wobbly at best. The sun is setting on big iron. And that is as it should be.

The Age of the SDR is about to explode

 
As an undergraduate at the University of Texas, I once took an Economics development course under Professor Walt Rostow.  He had been Lyndon Johnson's NSC advisor and a proponent of the Vietnam War (which I participated in).  Rostow was best known in academic circles for his book, The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-communist manifesto"

Professor Rostow held that after certain "pre-conditions" were met in a society, growth "took off". Often explosively. This "Rostovian take-off" concept was widely hailed as a significant model in understanding how economies evolved.

Now I don't know if Professor Rostow was a Ham radio operator. But I do believe his "take-off" theory is valid with respect to SDR adoption in ham radio in 2010.

The emergence of SDR's has been proceeding for some years now. As creative ham techonologists make ever more incremental advances in software defined radios. Domestically the Flex Radio is probably the best known. SoftRock.Org has enjoyed a serious "cult"  like following amongst software radio enthusiasts. And many other creative  SDR's have come onto the scene in the past few years. the Perseus has enjoyed wide spread commercial success and my fav the Quicksilver SDR is an impressive leap forward in the use of open source on a FPGA.  Ham Radio SDR "Impressario" N9VV is promoting many of the new entrants into this field.

 But were Professor Rostow alive today I think he would say that the entry of HB9DRV (Simon Brown's) SDR application would be the beginning of a rapid take off and wide spread adoption of SDR's across amateur radio. It could be argued that Mr. Brown's HRD has been the single most successful software application ever introduced into the hobby.  And by bringing his imaginative vision to SDR I predict HB9DRV will be a "Rostovian take-off" catalyst.

Dedicated RF devices will not disappear. But it is clear, the age of the SDR is about to explode. And Professor Rostow saw it coming decades ago.

Why Morse Code matters

 
Amidst the zillions of exchanges online, on the air and personal discourse, Hams have debated the merits and/or relevance of CW for decades.  I'm guessing it began in the 60's as Single Side band emerged as a dominant phone mode and the spectrum efficiency wars began with the old school AMers. (I recall fondly the rhetorical insults that used to fly between the slop bucket crowd and the AM purists!)  From there it simmered and then flashed again as talk began of reducing and or out right elimination of Morse as a part of licensing criteria by various governmental bodies.  Of course in the end it faded away as a requirement and we are left with a completely optional choice for the new Ham radio operator as to whether or not to learn this first mode of RF communication.

Morse Code is largely irrelevant  in 2010 as a critical mode of information exchange.  Even World Maritime authorities have largely turned their back on it as a vital requirement.  Despite Morse code's gripping historical beginnings and moments of incredible influence (Think the "Titanic" incident and WW I and WWII), it has been displaced by far more sophisticated methods and tools.

But to the hobbyist it's relevance is more than a mere technical operating choice. Indeed to many (largely elderly) hams, the mode reflects the essence of Amateur radio. Those first moments of CW recognition cutting through the crackle and interpreting the message are the "magic" that many old timers speak of. I would argue that it is also a reflection of the accomplishment and discipline required to learn the mode. 

W7EEO writes convincingly with impressive metrics about CW. His thesis pretty much lays to rest the notion that the mode is  dead.   Yet I would offer, that those who never adopt this first mode of our hobby are not "alive". Indeed in my view they are not "real" hams. They know not of the "thrill of recognition"  and they have not exhibited the necessary conviction to achieve morse competence.  They entered the hobby through the "affirmative action" plan of Ham radio. The "back door" of the hobby if you will.  And they shall forever be  "pretenders" to many coded class hams.

CW's relevance is not in dispute. It matters not as learning criteria for licensing. But the heritage, the soul of the hobby and it's "romance" have been defined by Morse Code.  And it defines what a real ham is in the 21st century.

Real Hams Real Radios (No Coders need not apply)

Cruising Ham Radio outlet today in Burbank, Ca. Saw the new Icom  7600 xcvr.  An elegant radio. And beautiful in style.  Yes, I want one.

 

As a kid the KWM-2 was "the" transciever to own. Of course I couldn't. Hell it wasn't even a consumer product like the Kenwood/Yaesu/Icom lines of today.  It was Mil-Spec!

Though I did operate an S-Line in the Army a few times. I "volunteered" at the MARS station at Ft. Benning a few weekends. They were happy to have me, after they saw I could run traffic. The  Mars Ops would take off for a few hours on Sat. and let the kid from the Infantry Scout Dog Handler school across the street run traffic.

When I came back to Ham  Radio in the early 80's it was the Kenwood TS-830 I bought. Considered by many to have been the finest vacuum tube transceiver ever made. The perfect platform for a pair of 6146's.

   

And then by the late 80's real hams moved on to the Kenwood TS-940 as the ultimate base station. They weren't perfect, but supremely fun to operate and actually took a basic understanding of RF concepts and electronics.

  

Looking back there is one thing these descendants of the KWM-1/KWM-2 shared. Even today the design of the 7600 has evolved from the Collins S-line in physical layout, center tune VFO knob, af gain placement, xmit tuning etc.   The seductive allure of the emerging  SDRs, not withstanding. I'll take these hard wired boxes every time.

The President of the USA could never cross the Alps

While the President frets over what to do in Afghanistan, his hesitancy sends a signal to the world. The U.S. is indecisive and timid. That is the message. Intended or not.
 

1. When Napoleon asked, ""Is it possible to cross the Alps?", only one officer is said to have proffered that it was possible. That was all it took. 

And in the winter of 42/43 when the Russians were backed up to the Volga as vicious fighting took place in the city of Stalingrad do you think there was debate over the wisdom of staying the course? (Actually there were a few who did so. And they were summarily executed on the spot).

Is the American Afghanistan decision comparable to these events? No. But  we have been told this is a War of Necessity.  That it's not optional.  Then why such trepidation? It is due in part because so few of the nation's leadership class have worn a military uniform.

**********************************************************************************************************************

PostScript:  Some 12 days after I posted this entry, former UN Ambassador John R. Bolton wrote an OP-ED piece in the LA Times, saying the President is dangerously "Dithering" not only on Afghanistan but across the entire  U.S. foreign policy spectrum. 

There are Generals who are bureaucrats and Generals who are Warriors

Media reports today say that NSC Advisor General James L. Jones has chided US AfPak Commander General Stanley McChrystal over comments made in a London speech. General McChrystal expressed his personal opinion over the prospects for success in Afghanistan if we do not "surge".  This of course has some in a tizzy.

General Jones won his stars as a Soldier/Statesman. His last decade of military duty saw no service "in harms way". No smell of cordite burned General Jones nostrils. No gut wrenching fear of an IED ambush

General Stanley McChrystal spent the 5 years prior to assuming command in Afghanistan as a Black Ops Warrior. In charge of all Special Opns in the Iraqi theater. His specialty: Stealth, Intelligence and Killing. The contrast between Jones and McChrystal could hardly be sharper. Jones spent much time in staff jobs and ceremonial command. McChrystal has slept in the dirt of the Middle east for years.

McChrystal's impolitic remarks not withstanding. Decide who you think you'd want to follow. The choice is obvious.

Non Profit Journalism? Maybe, but it's hard to see.

Can "non profit" models of journalism be effective?  This concept is being offered up to fill the void of newspapers that are laying off investigative reporters "left and right". I'm doubtful.

Blogger and media observer Jaclyn Schiff asks,  "What are the limitations" of non profit journalism (serious journalism that is)?

In an online editorial  Charles Lewis & Bruce Sievers   "All the News that's fit to Finance" accurately describe the dire straits ad supported journalism faces.   The business is imploding faster than most of us could have imagined.  The Non-Profit model as called for by various news thinkers is a good option.  But here's where I'm skeptical.

One of the greatest investigative journalism stories of my generation (I'm not talking about  Watergate!  :) ) was the Pentagon Papers crisis. An event Jaclyn surely studied as a student at GWU!  The story was broken by Neil Sheehan of the NY Times and subsequent releases by Daniel Schorr of CBS news. It caused a "Firestorm" in Washington. It was a domestic crisis of enormous magnitude over the Vietnam war  involving the White House, DoD and the Justice department and the press itself. And it challenged the very rationale of a free press and it's role in our nation.

I remember watching Schorr ( I had to go to the library for the NY Times in those days) on TV reporting  the story in the summer of 1971 as a just home from Vietnam student at the University of Texas. It was stunning to watch and read.  In  that analog era, to hear the story reported by Daniel Schorr of CBS news gave it a powerful thrust! This wasn't just anyone it was CBS News and the NY Times!   

So why couldn't a Non-Profit vehicle report such a story now?  They could.  But without the institutional infrastructure of the "Grey Lady" or the huge impact of being one of only three TV networks I believe the story would have far less impact.  With respect to Naomi Klein (Branding matters!).  I knew even then that the NY Times was staffed with serious journalists and a commitment to the highest ethical standards. And moreover they would risk jail to publish such a story!

Could a non-profit news vehicle develop a reputation of journalism excellence? Maybe. And with a wide following?  Unknown.  I think that niche/non-profit reporting while valid will struggle to be heard above the high velocity cacophony of information out there. And the last issue: "Is serious journalism even valued any longer?" Valued enough for citizens to voluntarily pay for it?  I think we know the answer.

I don't know how this plays out. (Like you I'm watching!).  But there is a supreme irony in that we now have more information choices than ever and we're wondering whether the nation is better served. 

Neil Sheehan went on to write "A Bright and Shinning Lie" about Vietnam (and for which he won a Pulitzer prize).  It was a mesmerizing read from a world class reporter. Will we have "world class" reporters anymore? Can they "break out" and be heard? And recognized for their work? Or will they drown in the torrent of words, images and sounds that flood into our lives each day?

I'm not 'cool' enough for Facebook.

I joined Facebook today. My son said I was "late to the party". I dutifully looked around. Even checked out some acquaintances and former colleagues. What I saw just isn't for me.

Observer of Digital culture, Andrew Keen has written extensively about  the Narcissism of the all connected  era.  Facebook  is certainly a place for that. Yet Facebook is not pretentious.  It's a "SOCIAL" network. Good for them!  And clearly they do what they do very well.

No doubt many people find useful engagement on the platform.  But Facebook is not my cup of tea .