Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bring Back Shortwave

spectator.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#101

Post by bobsomers »

There has been a bit of a shortwave revival in recent years, with activities like POTA (Parks on the Air) and SOTA (Summits on the Air) getting people back onto the HF bands. For those unfamiliar, POTA encourages people to get out to State and National parks, set up a portable radio (usually shortwave), and make as many contacts as they can in a short time. If you make 10 contacts, you’ve “activated” the park. The activator submits their logs to the website, and everyone they talked to gets credit for “hunting” that park.

Whoever designed the POTA website… it’s uncharacteristically brilliant for the amateur radio community. There are gazillions of metrics you can track about which parks you’ve hunted and which ones you’ve activated, progress bars for every state, all sorts of awards and “achievements” for various operating times, modes, repeats, etc.

It’s turned portable shortwave operating into gamified crack, except these are real skills that are valuable during an emergency. Having the equipment is one thing, but the regular practice of knowing how to quickly set it up and operate it anywhere is invaluable.

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#102

Post by kube-system »

hilbert42 wrote: post #19

Those who've had experience with either transmitting or receiving on the HF band and or lower frequencies (≤30MHz) and who've knowledge of ionospheric propagation just know that short, medium and longwave RF bands are still essential in this digital/cable/satellite era for reasons that when all other communications systems have failed then communications on these frequencies will still be reliable. Moreover, in warti…

> ionospheric propagation [...] will still be reliable.

...for varying definitions of 'reliable' :)

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#103

Post by tomwheeler »

BoredPositron wrote: post #36
jen729w wrote: post #25

In the early 2000s I was lucky enough to travel the world for work. I was a football nut and always carried a Sony radio so I could pick up the BBC World Service. I vividly remember turning it on late in a Sunderland vs. Newcastle match. I was in central Bogota, Colombia. Struggling for reception, knowing we'd gone 1-0 down early in the match, I can still hear the commentator: "and who would have thought, after going…

Yep, was my gateway to the world as little boy before the internet/bbs came around.

Same for me. Beyond the broadcasts, I'd write the stations and they'd reply by sending program guides, newspaper clippings, postcards, and other neat things from faraway places.

Some of the stations even offered language lessons over the air. I learned basic German when I was 12 from the ones on Deutsche Welle. I attempted to learn Chinese the following year from the big shortwave station in Taiwan.

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#104

Post by ralphc »

I've been a shortwave listener for over 30 years. I remember listening to Radio Israel when Saddam was sending scud missiles into Israel and the radio was directing people into shelters, real time.

One thing I'd like to see, especially if there is a concern for communication, is loosening the licensing restrictions that US shortwave stations cannot broadcast to the US. Back in the day when US station operators were interviewed they had to say that the were broadcasting to "Canada and Mexico", which was code for "to the US".

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#105

Post by sidewndr46 »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #63
sidewndr46 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bad choice, but the tiny tecsun radio I have has a telescopic antenna that is about 3 ft long when extended. It receives shortwave very well. If there is some distant broadcast (maybe overseas) that you want to receive you can definitely build a very efficient antenna system for that broadcaster's frequency. Be prepared to shell out well over $10,000 for this.

What kind of equipement one would need for that ? Also interested in what kind of equipment broadcasters use - it's some off the shelf stuff ?

This explains the process - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUaMXxWYao

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#107

Post by johnflan »

criddell wrote: post #90
y33t wrote: post #21

I love the idea of shortwave but all I ever pick up are Jesus channels.

I have a shortwave receiver and it is all weird Christian stuff. Even if that were my thing, I probably wouldn't listen because it all sounds awful. Is there something about shortwave that limits the audio fidelity?

How do they finance those radio stations?

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#108

Post by Jtsummers »

johnflan wrote: post #107
criddell wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a shortwave receiver and it is all weird Christian stuff. Even if that were my thing, I probably wouldn't listen because it all sounds awful. Is there something about shortwave that limits the audio fidelity?

How do they finance those radio stations?

Probably the same way a lot of that stuff gets funded, a rich true believer or a bunch of less-rich true believers donating. I used to live in a town where one of the largest landholders was selling off land a few acres at a time. He had a couple thousand acres (had been farmland, but the city had grown since that time and it was not that profitable as a farm) and was able to sell it at something like $25-50k/half-acre lot. Neighborhoods went up, he got money and funded a lot of missionary activities (primarily in Africa, as I understood it). You get someone like that to bankroll a radio station, they could probably set up an endowment to keep it running for quite a while. The land the station uses and towers, if owned by the station, can be rented out for more income as well.

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#109

Post by hilbert42 »

digitalsankhara wrote: post #65
hilbert42 wrote: post #19

Those who've had experience with either transmitting or receiving on the HF band and or lower frequencies (≤30MHz) and who've knowledge of ionospheric propagation just know that short, medium and longwave RF bands are still essential in this digital/cable/satellite era for reasons that when all other communications systems have failed then communications on these frequencies will still be reliable. Moreover, in warti…

You covered all the points I was going to make. As part of the pre-internet generation that grew up with radio and a ham radio operator since my school years this is second nature and common sense to me. It is interesting that governments have long recognised the power of shortwave such that they have restricted what a citizen can do with it. In wartime, ham radio is usually made illegal. The recipient of a broadcast…

"I suspect the removal of AM radio in EVs is also because the cost to RF shield the car against EM emissions in that frequency range was deemed too high for the audience it would address,.…"

The difficulty in suppressing switching noise/RFI is one of the stated reasons EV manufacturers give for removing AM reception. They say that keeping AM will increase EV costs.

If regulators/spectrum management were to agree to their request then that would imply a relaxation of existing EMI emission standards. With thousands of EVs on the roads the noise floor on the HF band and lower frequencies would become intolerable, the band would become unusable.

A while ago on HN I referred to a now-dated NATO communications tech note on interference that said the noise floor on the HF band had increased about 6dB. I went on to mention that about a decade ago I'd mentioned the NATO stats to an engineer from a HF transmitter manufacturing company at a trade show. He responded by asking me where I'd been in recent years and went on to state the noise floor on HF had since increased to about 17dB above the pre-digital switching era.

As I said that was about a decade ago when EVs were still only lab prototypes. If EV manufacturers are allowed to get away with emitting more EMI then the HF bands will become altogether unusable. And no doubt this is a serious problem.

EV manufacturers like Musk have enormous power and what worries me is that spectrum management authorities around the world will cave in further to pressure and relax EMI standards even more.

That increase in the noise floor from 6dB to 17dB was the result of spectrum management caving in to commercial pressure from the 1980s onwards. This was the era of deregulation and EMI regulations were loosened—EMR/noise testing etc. was not only relaxed but further outsourced.

It seems to me those who've a vested interest in the LF/MF/HF bands and want them preserved/saved from interference need to join forces and make concerted efforts to save them. An unlikely alliance of say the military, amateur radio (IARU), broadcasters and others speaking in unison to governments/ITU is what's needed to save these bands.

BTW, I once held an AR license which I got whilst I was still at school.

Re: Bring Back Shortwave

#110

Post by hilbert42 »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #72
digitalsankhara wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You covered all the points I was going to make. As part of the pre-internet generation that grew up with radio and a ham radio operator since my school years this is second nature and common sense to me. It is interesting that governments have long recognised the power of shortwave such that they have restricted what a citizen can do with it. In wartime, ham radio is usually made illegal. The recipient of a broadcast…

> Hell, even the BBC in the UK is closing down local AM transmitters on cost grounds (but I suspect there is political pressure to move the masses to digital UHF infrastructure). Yeah in a couple of years it'll just be Radio Caroline and various small-time pirates on AM. Even the venerable longwave transmitter for Radio 4 is getting shut down in a couple of months sadly. Can't help feeling this is all a bit short-sig…

"…it'll just be Radio Caroline and various small-time pirates on AM. Even the venerable longwave transmitter for Radio 4 is getting shut down in a couple of months sadly."

Even with this shortsighted decision, the size of the UK is such that FM and digital services can provide adequate coverage. But that's not the case for large countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. VHF services major population centres with comparative ease but it's essentially impossible for it to do so for vast sparsely-populated areas. This is where LF, MF and HF are effective.

Years ago I recall traveling by car from Sydney to Adelaide (Australia) which is about 1000 miles and the shortest route is to travel diagonally across the country (the longer way would be to travel the coastline where the population is larger and take in cities such as Melbourne).

Traveling cross-country meant going across sparsely-populated areas where local broadcast services were either nonexistent or very patchy (low power—just enough to service a small community). Nevertheless, that proved no problem as the ABC's (the Oz version of the BBC) capital city AM transmitters located in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide provided coverage all the way. Even though Melbourne wasn't on route at points along the way its transmitter was stronger than the other two. (I'd note that was the daytime coverage from all three transmitters sans skip.)

It would be impossible to provide that coverage with only three VHF transmittes no matter their power. Frankly, it'd be crazy to switch off AM transmissions in a country like Australia even if one discounted their strategic advantage.

Post reply on HN