November 2000 QST

CORRESPONDENCE
Your opinions count! Send your letters to “Correspondence,” ARRL, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111.
You can also submit letters by fax at 860-594-0259, or via e-mail to: qst@arrl.org.
We read every letter received, but we can only publish a few each month. We reserve the right to edit your letter for clarity,
and to fit the available page space. Of course, the publishers of QST assume no responsibility for statements made by correspondents.
DTV: HYPE OR PROMISE
Referring to the article by Peter Putman,
KT2B, in the August QST, I trust he is enjoying
his very expensive HDTV installation.
As a retired TV engineer following 42
years of broadcast activity, chief engineer
of two TV stations and other radio stations
and full responsibility from the camera lens
to the beacon on the tip of the antenna, I’d
like to offer my reactions to his comments.
The transition from NTSC specs to
HDTV specs is in no way similar to the transition
from black/white TV to color TV. The
B/W sets of the early TV days would still,
with no modification, display B/W pictures
from color broadcasts. A modern NTSC TV
set will not display a DTV signal. Addition
of a converter “box” will not change the
sweep frequencies of the display. Even if the
sync frequency of the broadcast signal is
within the range of the set’s specs, the vertical
resolution will not be improved. The horizontal
resolution may be slightly better but
very little due to the limited IF bandpass. The
picture you will get after spending for the
mandated converter “box” will give you
about the same quality as you are accustomed
to. The FCC has just made obsolete probably
500 million TV sets. But, you say, the
cable people will do the conversion for us.
Yes, at great expense they will be forced to
convert the DTV signals back to NTSC standards
and probably the UHF signals back to
their chosen channels. Does anyone believe
they will do this for free
The general public is not going to spend
$3000, maybe $1000 at least, for a new TV
set when their old one is operating perfectly.
Reception on computers, with a
receiver/converter depends on the sync frequencies
of the broadcast signals, of which
there are four different standards, at least
two of which will not work.
From the broadcaster’s standpoint, the
FCC has mandated the complete junking of
all the station equipment, cameras, microwave
links, transmitters, antennas—the
works. This will bankrupt many stations.
NTSC can broadcast pictures that HDTV
cannot. Visualize a screen full of random
color pixels filling the 3.5-MHz bandwidth
available for NTSC. Now randomly change
the color of the pixels 30 times a second.
NTSC can do that, compressed HDTV can’t.
From an engineering standpoint HDTV
is a stroke of genius. From a public acceptance
standpoint it is going to be a long,
hard climb. From a monetary standpoint it
24 November 2000
will be a flop. The FCC has just pronounced
the death knell of open circuit TV. We will
have to depend on satellite and cable services
and deep pockets.—Rowland Medler,
W4ANN, Gainesville, Florida
CONTESTS DO NOT PREPARE
OPERATORS FOR EMERGENCIES
A letter from Dave Rosen, K2GM, published
in the July, 2000 “Correspondence”
addresses a belief that has been circulating
within the Amateur Radio community for
years. A segment of the Amateur Radio
community has long suggested that contesters
are “well prepared to deal with the operational
demands that arise following disasters.”
Perhaps the time has come to take
a hard look at this belief and offer an alternative
viewpoint.
Unlike contesting, in which the information
exchanged is often identical and
repetitive, true disaster communications is
often complex and lengthy. Few emergency
communicators are afforded the luxury of
transmitting the same message, consisting
of just a few words, repeatedly throughout
a period of extended operations.
While it may be true that DXpeditions
are logistical triumphs, they are nonetheless
logistical triumphs that afforded the
participants the luxury of months, or perhaps
years, of preplanning. Disasters typically
arrive with little, if any, notice.
Furthermore, disasters often require the
emergency communicator to deploy to a
completely unfamiliar location, such as a
hospital, shelter or Incident Command Post.
Unlike most contesters, few emergency
communicators have the luxury of providing
disaster communications from home.
There is no doubt that contesting is an
honorable activity that offers many significant
benefits. However, if one wishes to be
fully prepared to provide emergency communications,
there are activities that offer
specific training for disaster response, including
the League’s own ARES and NTS
programs.
For example, participating in ARES
drills and exercises requires one to set up
portable equipment at command posts,
Emergency Operations Centers, hospitals or
shelters. Such equipment may utilize technologies
uncommon in contesting, such as
APRS, or even ATV. ARES drills require
one to transmit unfamiliar data and tactical
information, such as chemical names, telephone
numbers, addresses, or requests for
supplies and personnel.
Consider NTS nets. The dedicated
traffic handler must meet on schedule, regardless
of conditions. He must receive
unfamiliar messages, many of which contain
unique addresses, texts and signatures,
regardless of propagation conditions or interference.
He must be thoroughly familiar
with a standard phonetic alphabet, the
proper usage of prowords and prosigns, and
the mechanics of net procedures.
Whether intended or not, when one suggests
that contesters are best qualified to
support disaster communications, an implication
is made that participation in ARES
and NTS activities is unnecessary. Let’s
encourage every contester to take time to
register with his ARRL Emergency Coordinator
or his NTS Net Manager instead.—
Jim Wades, WB8SIW, Ypsilanti, Michigan
EVERYTHING DOESN’T WORK
“Everything Works” by Thomas Schiller,
N6BT, in the July QST, told an interesting
tale, but it might mislead new hams. It describes
breaking DX pileups using only a
light bulb for an antenna, it being only
18-dB less effective than a dipole. (If the
feed line truly doesn’t radiate, expect about
–100 dB, and not hearing anything at all.)
Figure 2 in the article positions triband trap
Yagis as, on the average, no better performers
than dipoles while according to everyone
else, they are 5 to 8 dB better, not to
mention being multiband. And while the
“enjoyment” axis of the figure suggests the
ultimate is using six of the author’s Force
12 antennas, many hams expand their
pleasure by trying different bands with trap
antennas, exploring the MUF, adding amplifiers,
trying VHF, exploring low-power
portable operation, and by building. Nonetheless,
most of us can relate to the article’s
“path” discussion, and the role of the other
ham’s station, topics that seem to come up
early in a QSO.—Gary Gordon, K6KV,
Saratoga, California
Judging by the article “Everything
Works” in the July, 2000 issue, QST has
decided to get into the “irritainment” business.
What bothers me is the idea that your
enjoyment of Amateur Radio is in proportion
to the effectiveness of your antenna.
The article implies that you can’t really
have much fun with anything less than a full
sized dipole in the clear, higher than onethird
wavelength, and even then, you are just
“beginning to experience the fun of radio.”