That's a logical diagnosis. Thanks for the assistance.

Teak

Thanks to all.

Given my space in my shack -- shared family area -- and my desire to go portable often I am sure I'll end up with an 857. The price is good now, too.

Great input from everybody. Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving.

Teak

I am new to packet and just made my first connection.

I used a SignaLink USB through a Yaesu FT1900 and used AGWPE and AGWTERMINAL to connect to a local node for the local ARES net. My connection was fine and I received the appropriate response from the station controlling the packet net.

This is the message I got once connected:
 1:Fm MSTL To KD0KVV <I R1 S1 pid=F0 Len=204 >[20:02:27]
Welcome to N0ARS Packet Station located in Florissant, MO EM48.
Please leave your call sign, name, location and status of any traffic to
check into the St Louis County ARES Packet Digital Net.

I did as instructed.

All seemed great, except that my radio kept transmitting every 7 seconds or so, as if it was trying to connect to the node or send a packet, although it was already connected and I was not sending any commands or text during this time, it's as if the SignaLink and radio were on autopilot.

Here is the message that kept showing up in the "Unproto Channel - Untitled" window on AGWTERM:

 1:Fm MSTL To KD0KVV <RR P/F R2 >[20:04:43]
 1:Fm KD0KVV To MSTL <RR P/F R2 >[20:04:43]
 1:Fm MSTL To KD0KVV <RR P/F R2 >[20:04:50]
 1:Fm KD0KVV To MSTL <RR P/F R2 >[20:04:50]
 1:Fm MSTL To KD0KVV <RR P/F R2 >[20:05:03]
 1:Fm KD0KVV To MSTL <RR P/F R2 >[20:05:03]
 1:Fm MSTL To KD0KVV <RR P/F R2 >[20:05:10]
 1:Fm KD0KVV To MSTL <RR P/F R2 >[20:05:11]

I'm not sure if this is normal. It seemed odd to me that the radio was trying to send even though I wasn't telling it to. Does it take several TXs to complete packet transfer?

I looked for a setting in AGWTERMINAL and AGWPE to determine if I had a preference telling the system to transmit a message or beacon frequently but I didn't notice anything obvious.

The TX on the SignaLink is set just above mid way, the RX about 3/4 way full and the DLY is cranked down to the second line.

Any ideas what might be signalling the radio to transmit? Again, perhaps this is normal and this packet newbie is concerned about nothing...


Thanks

Teak
KD0KVV

Just in the interest of discussion:

One of the greatest assets of the amateur radio service is our flexibility because of limited regulation. We are, in fact, encouraged to experiment and development new radio techniques within the parameters of Part 97 rules. That extreme flexibility makes amateur radio attractive to groups whose licensing would limit them, perhaps to low-wattage voice FM only. This incredible flexibility is one thing that makes amateur radio so attractive to "served agencies."

But when should organizations use commercial radio, not amateur radio, for their events or disaster communications? I'm not talking about just the strict legal requirement, as we know that amateur radio is not supposed to be used for commercial purposes. But there are varying opinions about what exactly constitutes commercial purpose, so this is more of an ethical thing.

At what point is an organizations' use of amateur radio just a way to avoid having to pay for a commercial system and an abuse of the amateur radio service?

Take, for example, a large marathon that is intended to raise money for a cause. The marathon is operated by a qualified non-profit organization that pays a few employees but relies largely on volunteers. A portion of the proceeds from the marathon is used to pay the organization's rent, operation expenses, salaries, etc but most of the proceeds go to the cause. Some of the marathon expenses are for commercial groups that make money on the operation -- the port-a-pot company, the rental for the tents and stage for the entertainment, etc.

Communications along the course is provided by volunteer amateur radio operators. Is this proper? Would it be better for the marathon to hire an events coordination company to do the radio comms or just rent commercial radios to give to their volunteers?

What about volunteer search and rescue teams? The volunteers do the work for free but the public service work may be funded in part by tax dollars. Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to use the FCC allocated public safety spectrum? I don't know of any volunteer fire departments or ambulance services that use only amateur radio (there may be some, I just don't know of any) -- I suspect because some regulation prohibits it. Why are some S&R teams permitted to use the amateur spectrum?

I'm not really trying to take a side here. I'm just curious about others' input as to how much amateur radio could/should be used in some situations. Amateur radio service a strong public service component to it -- spelled out by the part 97 rules: "(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications" but to what limits?

Thanks

Teak
KD0KVV

Mr. E Fudd,

I would think that technically you'd be in violation of Part 97 and as a violator subject to extra scrutiny by the FCC when it comes time to licensing. Keep in mind that the "emergency use" clause states one may use any means of communication in "connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available."

So, if you could just as easily call the National Weather Service with a telephone, you would be in violation. Reporting to an amateur radio Skywarn net may not be the most expedient way to get the information to the people who really need it -- the NWS and EMA, who issue the warning and activate the alert systems. Not all amateur radio Skywarn nets are a direct link to either the NWS or the EMA.

Keep in mind in your scenario that Skywarn is not an amateur radio service. Amateur radio is one service used by Skywarn-trained volunteers. NWS offices take Skywarn spotter reports via multiple modes, including telephone and Internet reports.

Of course, the FCC would need to be able to track you down and have reasonable evidence that it was indeed you, Mr. E. Fudd,  who made the transmission in order to put you on the bad-boy list. There are so many licensed hams willfully violating rules and getting away with it that it's highly unlikely that you'd be caught or disqualified.

Either way, it's not good amateur practice.

The hypermemories are perhaps the most misunderstood feature of this radio. I figured out how to program the 5 hypermemories to my satisfaction, but I can't figure out how to get it out of hypermemory operation.

I can select any of the 5 hypermemories, but I can't get it back into just plain-old scan mode, no hypermemory.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Teak
KD0KVV

Well, you may have sold me on the 480SAT. Right now it's just a little less money than an 857 with a tuner. The mounting bracket you mentioned makes it all mount as one unit so that would add some versatility to portable configuration, although the face/body unit doesn't bother me. It's actually quite convenient.

I'll have to look into the remote operation stuff.

Thanks for the input.

Teak

Fellow hams,

I'm getting close to buying a Yaesu 857d or 897d. I'm trying to decide which one to get and am hoping somebody else on here has experience with both. I plan to use this radio both at home and in the field, not mobile. It will be my primary HF rig, both home and away.

My understanding is that, in terms if the inner workings, software, etc. they are essentially the same radio. So I have a few questions:

Both are menu very driven, but is the 897 any less so? It appears to have a few more buttons on the face, so are those "shortcuts" compared to the 857? Is the 897 easier to use? specifically I'm inquiring about the basic operations, like changing bands, activating DSP or whatever other commonly used features there may be (I very new to HF).

Is the 897 more ruggedly built? If so, is it substantially more?

I like the mountable tuner for the 897 and the option of internal batteries, which would make field operations convenient although limited in power to 20. These options make it convenient for field work.

The 897 runs about $150 more, plus extra for the internal batteries, a battery charger, etc. In the end the 897 set up with the extras for the field (tuner, internal batteries, charger, etc.) could run about $1,600, where as I could get an 857 and tuner for about just under $1,000. I already have several 7Ah and 12Ah batteries for field ops, as well as a portable power supply.

If they are essentially the same radio(again, in function), there must be a reason the 897 is considerably more expensive.

Thanks to all.

Teak
KD0KVV

I MOVED THIS TO STATION BUILDING AS IT SEEMED MORE APPROPRIATE

TEAK
KD0KVV

Yes, the SignaLink has an integrated sound card so running it on a computer without one should work. If you had a sound card in the computer you'd need to adjust settings so that the sound card only runs in the computer and not through the interface (something to keep in mind if you upgrade computers). From what I see the AGWPE is an engine that allows other programs, like AGW Terminal, to work.

What is Outpost? Perhaps something I need to check out.

There's a bunch of software, including AGWPE and AGWTERM that comes on a mini-disk with the SignaLink.

Although I know that -- I just got a SignaLink and it seems to work fine once I figured out how to set the computer and software -- I have no idea what to do next.

I connected to a local ARES packet node successfully and was able to give a few commands, which worked. But I have no clue where to go next if i want to use the SignaLink to allow chat-style QSOs or just an exchange of information. I'm pretty sure I need to have another user on the other end to do anything and I don't know many hams who can (or will) help out on this.

Does anybody have suggestions for learning how to have some fun with this thing? Winlink sounds cool, but I can't tell if I have an appropriate node near me (I'm in St. Louis).

Good luck, KD5PCK.

Teak

KD0KVV

I am interested in finding Knights of Columbus members in the St. Louis metro area to talk radio radio perhaps to start a K of C amateur radio club.

If any STL area knights are interested please contact me via my callsign at arrl dot net.

Thanks

Teak

Jim, I hope you're right about the interest in "hamming." I think it's the case, but issued licenses isn;t enough to convince me.

I'm glad the test requirements changed. That's why I am a ham now. I found both the tech and general exams -- I took both in 2010 -- to be interesting to study for, not incredibly difficult but still an enjoyable challenge. The Extra book is melting my brain.

I decided to study for my tech license at the urging of a "prepper" friend who thinks that radio is the way to communicate when it "all happens."

Like many, I had a mild interest in radio as a child and teenager -- I recall a Boys' Life magazine cartoon that depicted ham radio operations ("I'm talking to Paris ... Paris, Illinois") -- but didn't have enough desire to learn Morse code to go for the license. I suspect there are many people who have an interest but still think Morse code is required.

My eyes and mind were opened to the amazing world of ham radio while studying for my tech license and it quickly became a hobby, not merely a "prepping" solution. My friends and family are fascinated that I have made contacts through a satellite using an antenna made of PVC and a tape measure, that I can send e-mail and text messages without any sort of Internet connection or cell phone service and that I've learned a bunch of interesting skills in building, tinkering and problem solving. It was the relative simplicity of the tech license, and the thoroughness of the ARRL study guide -- that open the gate to this really cool hobby that happens to have a public service use that could come in handy. And now I'm teaching myself the code because it's just plain cool. I'm talking Steve McQueen cool.

My buddy who convinced me to get my license still believes that radio will be the way to communicate when the power and phones fail. Yet he still doesn't know how to change the PL tone on his radio; knows the frequency of just one repeater; and sure as heck will not be able to figure out how to hit a repeater, let alone which repeater, when in an unfamiliar area or if repeaters are out of reach of his stock rubber duck. And long-distance communications? He's hosed.

To each his own, but I tell him he's wasting his callsign.

The whole "when all else fails" marketing campaign doesn't really send much of a message about the reality of ham radio.

I'd love to see the ARRL and other clubs push the "ham radio is just plain cool" agenda as marketing.  Maybe it will result in more of the licensees getting involved and inventing more cool stuff.

By now most know that there are more than 700,000 licensed amateur radio operators in the U.S. http://www.arrl.org/news/us-amateurs-now-700-000-strong.

Of course, this is a count of valid licenses, not "active" hams.

It would be interesting to get an idea of how many of the new hams got their tickets because of an interest in ham radio -- the DXing, tinkering, experimentation, etc -- versus an interest in "preparedness." Many of the prepper books and videos advocate ham radio as a way for the common man to have communications when "the grid goes down." But they don't necessarily advocate hamming -- the hobby stuff.

I'm not making an argument for or against being licensed for "prepping" versus an interest in electronics and radio as a hobby. Just wondering what kind of impact the prepper movement has had on licensing.

Perhaps we'll see a spike in ARRL and local club membership. That won't be a perfect measure but it could indicate more people being interested in the hobby. But if we see a steady drop in club rosters and a spike in amateur licenses, that might be good indicator that licensees are more interested in just having radios than playing with radios as a hobby.

Maybe more people are just interested in ham radio and are motivated to get their licenses now that there's no code requirement. I know several people who had always had an interest but assumed it would be too hard to pass a cw test, myself included.

Thoughts?

Thanks, Dave. I' may be reaching out to you to pick your brain a little.

I'm in the city.

Teak

Thank you all for the responses.

A while back I called Army Mars (I'm pretty sure it was Army Mars, anyway, and I think it was at Ft. Leonard Wood) and talked to a guy who basically told me they don't do much anymore. It wasn't much of a sales pitch.

I know there are a few guys in Missouri who are involved, and I believe the Air Force MARS is HQd at Scott AFB, just a few miles east of me.

It certainly seems that MARS isn't what it used to be. That's too bad, really. It sounds like a good service.

I wonder what the chances are of a DoD MARS -- unified under one command. Probably not much.

It seems to me that FEMA would love to have something like this, too.

Teak