Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Ryan Tourge, N2YQT

Good question and I guess it's something we take for granted. Usually at least net control is running TXID so the software picks up what mode provided you have RXID enabled.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 6:42 AM Steve Bellner <stevebellner@...> wrote:
Here in Toledo Ohio we are using MT63 2000L for repeater and simplex use
(Short distance communication). Participants are encouraged to use audio
coupling if they do not have an interface.

For HF we use Olivia 8/500 or Olivia 32/1000 depending on band
conditions on 40/80 meters or MFSK64 and MT63 1000L also depending on
band conditions.

We have also found that a great use for Slow Scan TV is for damage
assessment or as we all say "a picture is worth a thousand words" I
encourage you to try SSTV if you have not done so. It can run at the
same time FLdigi does so it is always at the ready. You can download it
at this web page:

It also works well on HF.

Winlink is also a tool we try to employ as using hf to send out e-mail
to awaiting servers outside of our "disaster zone" who THEN put it
reliably and accurately onto the internet to be sent to anyplace in the
world... even relayed to a more distant HF station.

  We have been participating in what we call "Winlink Wednesday" where
as we send a Winlink e-mail to one person who reply's to our return
receipt. We simply send in the message CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY, STATE,
MODE i.e. (TELNET or HF, or VHF) If you like, send a winlink e-mail to
K8EAF@...  In the e-mail simply state CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY,

It is good to versed in as many modes a you can. We do not have a MESH
network here in the flat part of Ohio however we are being prodded to
look at setting mesh networks up around hospitals. If communications are
that bad... Likely the internet will be down too so it will all have to
go HF to get out of the "Disaster Zone" anyway.

Remember, when there is a disaster you may have to adapt and
overcome.... sometimes you need a 16 ounce hammer and sometimes you need
a pick ax.


Steve, W8TER

On 9/19/2018 12:16 AM, WA7SKG via Groups.Io wrote:
> Sarah,
> Thanks for your comments. My concern with mesh networks is the heavy
> reliance on infrastructure. As  I understand mesh networks, you have a
> bunch of tiny cells making a network. Without those cells, you have no
> coverage. The beauty of ham radio is generally its lack of
> infrastructure. Generic radios talking to generic radios. Sure, there
> are repeaters on VHF/UHF, but emergency systems cannot totally rely on
> them. And, they can easily be replaced with basic radios. Mesh
> networks take a lot of specialized equipment and still only cover a
> relatively small area per radio. In a major disaster environment, you
> have to be able to make up networks with "Run What You Brung"
> equipment. Lose a repeater and you can cobble one together with a
> couple mobile radios and some junk box parts to get back on the air
> with county wide coverage. How many mesh nodes does it take to give
> county wide coverage and how many hams would be able to use it?
> Don't get me wrong, I love playing with mesh stuff, although I haven't
> had much opportunities in my rural area. I encourage everyone to play
> in whatever aspect of ham radio they enjoy. But don't look at exotic
> systems like mesh networks to be viable in SHTF situations.
> With NBEMS systems, one can take pretty much any generic ham radio and
> laptop computer and communicate over a wide area to pass traffic,
> files, and images. I just saw it tonight on the ORCA network. Great
> fun with basic equipment.
> Good luck with your mesh network. In a highly populated area like L.A.
> with thousands of people per square mile, it might have moderate
> success for day-to-day operations. In areas like mine with dozens of
> square miles per ham, not so much.
> 73,
> Michael WA7SKG
> Sarah wrote on 09/18/2018 07:39 PM:
>> Hello Michael:
>> Simple answer first: Although I can't speak for Los Angeles Co., CA
>> as a whole the groups I work with use MT63-2000L.  There are regular
>> nets out here on 2m and 220.
>> WinLink:  The ARES organization in LA County is split up in to
>> sections because the county is so large.  I understand one of the
>> sections regularly alternates their weekly digital net between NBEMS
>> and WinLink. I haven't work with WinLink but I take your point about
>> station-to-station versus station-to-everyone in comparing WinLink to
>> NBEMS.  There must be other people working WinLink in my county but
>> I'm just not tuned into it.
>> Standardization between digital modes:  That would be nice. Sadly I
>> don't even think LA County is "standardized" much less Southern
>> Calif. or the entire state. But I'm a low on the totem pole and
>> willing to be corrected.
>> What we ought to be doing:  Based on discussions with my Elmer and
>> others I think hams in LA County who have the interest and can obtain
>> the equipment need to focus on building a Mesh Radio network.  It's
>> great that folks know and use NBEMS and WinLink but my understanding
>> is that Mesh Radio is really the future. There are active Mesh Radio
>> groups running in Ventura (the county west/northwest of LA) and
>> Orange Counties (to the south/southwest).  It would just be a darn
>> shame for LA County _not_ to be connected to them.
>> 73, Sarah, N6OPE

Join to automatically receive all group messages.