Foundations of Amateur Radio

Foundations of Amateur Radio Recently I was helping a friend erect their newly refurbished multi-band antenna and during the process we discussed the notion of tuning an antenna that's high in the air. They made a curious response, in that they'd tuned the antenna on the ground before we started. I asked how this would work, since as I understand the process, this changes things once it gets in the air. They assured me that while the actual SWR might change, the frequencies at which it was resonant would not. This was news to me because I've been putting off erecting my own multi-band 6BTV antenna mainly because I didn't really want to face having to erect it, tune it, lower it, modify the elements, erect it, tune it, etc., all whilst standing on the steel roof of my patio. Would this phenomenon be true for my antenna? It occurred to me that I could test this idea, not only for my antenna, but for other antennas as well. In my minds-eye, I saw a video displaying the pertinent attributes of an antenna, SWR, gain, radiation pattern, and whatever else I could think of, animated with the modifications of things like height and ground radials. If this sounds familiar in some way, it's because I've been here before. This time the outcome was slightly different, since I found a tool that can optimise antennas using a genetic algorithm. What I mean by that is an automated process where you can test variations of a thing, in this case antennas. Rather than design each antenna and test it, you essentially generate antenna designs and tweak them to determine the best one. Then you use that to generate the next series of designs. Rinse and repeat until you have what you're looking for. There's a whole field of computer science dedicated to this and unsurprisingly the rabbit hole goes deep. The tool is called "xnec2c-gao" and it's written by Maurizio DC1MDP. The name of the tool hints at its nature, working in combination with "xnec2c", written by Neoklis 5B4AZ and maintained by Eric KJ7LNW, you'll find links to both tools on the xnec2c.org website. How the two tools work together is a beautiful dance. The antenna modelling tool, xnec2c, can read an antenna definition file and detect if it changes, at which point it can redo the simulation, which it can output to another file. The genetic algorithm optimisation tool, xnec2c-gao, can detect the changed output and update the antenna definition file, and the process repeats. Which brings me to a pro-tip, for this to work, you need to configure xnec2c to do two things, detect the changed definition file, and write the output to CSV, both of these options can be found in the "Optimization Settings" menu, just so you don't spend an hour banging your head against the desk. Between the two tools, the antenna definition evolves and you end up with a design optimised for your purpose. The default does this for SWR and gain. Mind you, I tested a multi-band dipole which managed to find some interesting designs, but didn't pick them because a low SWR combined with a high gain, for reason't I don't yet understand, wasn't considered better than a high SWR with a high gain, so there's some work to be done. As a software developer I have a sneaking suspicion that it's adding the two, rather than picking the highest gain combined with the lowest SWR, but I haven't confirmed that. As I said, deep rabbit hole. While we're not yet at the video display stage, for the first time I can get a sense that this might come to pass. There's plenty of work to be done. For example, the antenna display on xnec2c during the process seems broken, there's no way to output gnuplot files during the process, and capturing the various charts in real-time will require work, but all that seems if not easy, at least possible. Meanwhile, I'm attempting to locate an antenna definition file, preferably in .NEC format for my 6BTV antenna, so I can use this combination of tools to discover if tuning it on the ground will work and while I'm at it, discover if the installation I'm working on will give me something worthwhile. I realise that this is well beyond "try it and see", but my body isn't up to climbing up and down ladders 17 times in a day and I think that getting a feel for what might occur is a good way to learn. When was the last time you climbed on a roof and what did you do to avoid it? I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio Just over a year ago, the ARRL, the American Radio Relay League, the peak body for amateur radio in the United States and one of the oldest of such organisations, experienced an incident. During the weeks following, the ARRL was tight-lipped about the extent of the incident and most amateurs only really noticed that services were off-line or slow to respond. After months of delay and disinformation, the ARRL finally revealed that it was the subject of a ransomware attack and that it had paid a million dollar ransom. It went on to blame the authorities for its silence. Mind you, it didn't tell me personally, it made public statements on its website. Similarly when I specifically contacted the ARRL to discover what information of mine it held, and what the status of that information was, the ARRL responded that I should refer to its public statements. It continued to state that my information was not compromised, since it only lived in LoTW, the Logbook of The World, the system it uses to coordinate the verification of amateur radio contacts, which are used to distribute awards like the DXCC and Worked All whatever. Imagine my surprise when I received an email this week, sent from "[email protected]" to my non-amateur radio email address. I confirmed with several amateurs that they too received this email. Informative, to a point, but likely well beyond anything intended by its author, it stated that LoTW was being updated with associated down time, incidentally, inexplicably, coinciding with the 2025 ARRL Field day, and it "will be fully migrated to the cloud". It went on to solicit donations. It made no reference whatsoever to the ransomware attack. There's a lot hidden in that email. Although the attack last year was linked to the outage associated with LoTW, the ARRL has continued to claim that the LoTW data was not impacted by the ransomware attack, but the email reveals that the system is being migrated to the cloud, in other words, right now, it's not in the cloud. Which begs the question, where is the server infrastructure for LoTW today, and more importantly, where was it a year ago when its systems were compromised? From a public post by Dave AA6YQ, dated the 2nd of February 2021, in response to a message about a January LoTW committee meeting, we know that the LoTW server "now employs the current version of an SAP database engine". A month before that, Dave wrote another informative email that indicated that 105 thousand callsigns submitted logs to LoTW in the last 1,826 days or the five years between 2016 and 2021. There were logs from 21 thousand callsigns in the week prior to that January post. In all, according to Dave, there were 153,246 callsigns who submitted contacts to LoTW. The LoTW committee meeting minutes are no longer available from the ARRL website, but I have a copy. The document states that there were 1.2 billion contacts entered into LoTW, big number right? The next line tells us that this resulted in 262 million QSO records. I wonder what happened to the other billion records? This activity was generated by 139 thousand users using 200 thousand certificates. For context, every VK callsign automatically comes with an AX callsign, but LoTW requires that you separately register each with its own certificate. As someone who has been playing with databases since the 1980's I can tell you that LoTW is a tiny database. For comparison, the WSPR database is an order of magnitude larger, not to mention, more active. I have no insight into the business rules within the LoTW database, but the fact that updates are being processed in batches and that it regularly has delays indicates a level of complexity that I cannot account for. As an aside, the LoTW committee document lists 10 members. Dave is not one of those listed. It makes me wonder who else has access to this database. Note that I have no reason to believe that Dave's information is questionable, nor that he has access that he shouldn't, he was after all a member of the LoTW committee from 2013 until 2017 when the ARRL removed all development resources from the LoTW. I'm asking who else has access and why? While we're here, who has been doing maintenance and updates on this system over the past seven years? Moving on. The database for LoTW contains information from amateurs all over the planet, including those in Europe where the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, enacted in 2016, is extremely strict on the security and disclosure of personal data with very heavy penalties for breaches. The GDPR requires notifications be sent within 72 hours of a breach, and that an organisation must designate a data protection officer. I wonder who has that role at the ARRL and I wonder if they told anyone? Did any European amateurs receive personal notification from the ARRL about their data, I know I didn't. My first activation of LoTW was in 2013, now twelve years ago. I received certificate expiry messages in 2016 and 2019. Since then there have been no such messages. That's unsurprising, since I stopped using LoTW once I discovered just how broken it was. Don't get me started on portable and QRP variants of my callsign. My care factor is low as to when I last actually used it, since attempting to dig up that information would take considerable effort, but I can guarantee that it was before 28 October 2019, when the last certificate expired. You might come to this point and ask yourself why am I digging into this at all? Let me ask you some questions in addition to those I've already mentioned. SAP, the database system which apparently runs LoTW, had 254 CVEs, or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures listed, in 2020 alone. It continues to have exploits. When was SAP updated and is it up to date today? Is it credible that LoTW wasn't compromised during the ransomware attack? Does the ARRL know this for sure, or did it just not detect the compromise? We know that LoTW was down during the incident and according to the UptimeRobot service showed outages on the 14th of May 2024 but we still don't know exactly when this attack started. As you might know, the ARRL is also the headquarters for the IARU International Secretariat, the administration body for the global representation of our hobby. It presumably shares infrastructure with the ARRL, but at no point in the past year have we been advised of the impact of this breach to the IARU. What information is stored in LoTW and why has the ARRL continued to ignore requests for disclosing the specific information it holds on the users of that system? I know for sure that it knows my callsigns and my email address. I also know for sure that it required identity documents to prove my identity and right to use those callsigns. I have been told in writing that LoTW never deletes anything, so what does it store and can I delete all my records and if-so, how? Why did I receive an update about the upgrade for LoTW when I'm clearly not an active user of the system? The [email protected] is used for all manner of services, including the propagation updates, and the three other ARRL bulletins. In other words, this address is used for a myriad of messaging. Is this information stored in a database and if so, where is this database? Was it compromised? What information is stored in that database? Are my details in that database, are yours? While discussing this LoTW update email with other amateurs, I was informed by one amateur that even after they stopped being a member of the ARRL, as a direct result of the ransomware attack and the discontinuation of the delivery of QST magazine they paid for, the ARRL continued to send regular email updates as-if they were still a current member. Where is that data stored and how are the ARRL not considered a source of SPAM? While we're exploring the blurred lines between being a member of the ARRL and not, why did it send the update about the incident via email to its members on 21 August 2024 and update the website a day later, and why did it not send that same email to me and every other amateur directly? Why does the ARRL continue to ignore its obligations in relation to the personal information it clearly and demonstrably holds? The GDPR has been a fact of life since 2016. It's not optional if you store data for European citizens, but the ARRL doesn't even mention it on their privacy policy page. Did European users receive specific notification about the breach, now a year ago, which clearly the ARRL had both the capacity and obligation to? Has the GDPR been invoked by European amateurs? Should it? You could attempt to explain all this as incompetence or mismanagement. That's a response, but it doesn't pass the sniff test. For example, implementing SAP is a non-trivial process. I have over 40 years professional experience in the ICT field and I'm not sure I would stick up my hand to have a go at doing this. Mind you, if I did, there's no way I'd choose SAP, I'd find an open source solution, but that's just me, not to mention that SAP license costs are significant, this in an organisation asking users for donations. The thing is, we're talking about a system that's now at least 22 years old, running in an organisation that's been around for over a century, an organisation that deals in regulation and legalese at the very foundation of its existence. In other words, there's a massive amount of legal and technical skill and history available within the organisation, but we're still seeing this level of at best questionable, at worst illegal behaviour. I'm not a member of the ARRL and nothing I've seen to date makes me want to give them any of my money. If you are, perhaps you should be asking some questions. If you're a citizen of Europe, perhaps you should start asking some questions about your data. If you pay money to your own peak body, then you should ask it to find out what happend at the IARU International Secretariat during the attack. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio The other day Randall, VK6WR, encouraged me to get on-air. He described it like this: "There is a mystery signal on 40m that you can try your new Universal Radio Hacker skills on. It appears to be a FSK signal separated by 7kHz with the two signals at 7.0615 and 7.0685 MHz. Each of them on their own sounds a bit like a Morse signal, but my CW decoder decodes junk. But if you can see it on a spectrum scope, it is clearly FSK because either one of them is on at any time." He went on to say: "You'll need an SDR to receive the signal given the separation, but could be a fun investigation!" Having just discovered "Universal Radio Hacker", a tool that can help you decode radio signals, that sounded like something I'd love to have a go at. Unfortunately, after the demise of my main workstation last year, my current set-up doesn't allow me to do such recordings, but Randall, ever the gentleman, provided a recording of the signal. He writes: "This was captured with gqrx demodulating the signal as SSB audio with the VFO tuned to 7.060, so both "signals" are there, one very low freq and one very high freq." If you're curious, I've uploaded the file as it was shared with me to my VK6FLAB GitHub repository under "signals". Over the next two days I spent my time attempting to decode this signal. I opened up Universal Radio Hacker and spent delightful hours getting precisely .. nowhere. Some of that is absolutely my unfamiliarity with the tool, but this is a great exercise in learning on the fly, where truth be told, I tend to live most of my life. It wasn't until several hours later that I decided I should at least listen to the audio. To my ear it sounded like 25 WPM Morse Code, but being still in the learning phases, while my brain was triggering on the sequences, decoding wasn't happening. Of course I could cheat and forward the audio to one of my fellow amateurs, but the actual message wasn't really the point of the exercise, at least not at this stage. Instead I fired up "multimon-ng" which has an in-built Morse decoder. I spent some hours doing more Yak Shaving than I was expecting, but even then, I still didn't get more than gobbledegook out of the process. I used "Audacity" to shift one of the signals by one wavelength and mixed them together. This allowed me to reduce the noise significantly, but still none of my tools did anything useful. In case you're wondering why, if you have a tone and noise and shift one signal by the wavelength of the tone, then mix them, the tone adds to itself, but the noise, random in nature, is just as likely to add as it is to subtract, so in effect, you're increased the signal to noise ratio. After multimon-ng failed, I tried an online Morse decoder, which gave me all manner of text, but none of it made sense to me. Of course it's possible that this is someone rag chewing in a different language, but I couldn't make any sense of the thing. I did come up with some issues that prompted me to create the signal repository. I realised that I didn't have any known "good" signals. Previously I'd tried decoding a sample FT4 signal, but that went nowhere, mainly because the signal was noisy. So, what I'm going to do over the next couple of weeks is create some clean, as-in, computer generated, known signals, and add them to the repository. The aim is to have a known good starting point to learn from. In software development this technique is often used to limit the number of unconstrained variables. In our case, if I generate a known good Morse Code signal, then I can learn how to use Universal Radio Hacker to decode it, so when I come across an unknown signal, I can use the techniques I learnt to attempt to decode it. Feel free to make pull requests with known good signals yourself. RTTY, PSK31, WSPR, FT8, etc. Feel free to include non-amateur modes. One thing, I'm not looking for off-air recordings of signals, yet, that can come later, right now I need signals that are pure, as-in, as I said, computer generated. Of course at some point, perhaps sooner rather than later, I'll discover that generated signals are no easier to decode than off-air recordings, but that's for another day. Meanwhile, you too can play. Download one or more sample files and decode them. Let me know what you learn. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio The other day I was discussing with a fellow amateur the increased frustration my mobile phone provider was inflicting. We hit on the idea of figuring out if other providers would fit the bill and how we could determine if their coverage would suit our needs. Aside from using an old mobile phone, I suggested that using a $25 RTL-SDR dongle would provide a way to record mobile phone cell site beacons from the various mobile networks to map what signal levels we might find. To that end, I discovered a tool called LTE-Cell-Scanner by Xianjun BH1RXH. Forked from the original project by James Peroulas, it allows you to use simple hardware to scan for LTE Cells used by mobile phone networks. James points out on his site that this tool can also be used to calibrate an RTL-SDR receiver's oscillator, since an LTE downlink centre frequency is stable to within 50 Parts Per Billion, that's 10 times more stable than my Yaesu FT-857d using a TCXO. If this doesn't mean much, think of it as a local frequency reference standard that you can use in your shack with minimal effort and cost. The story gets better. I started building LTE-Cell-Scanner from source and in doing so discovered a directory on my computer named "uhrr". I didn't remember what it was for, so I looked online. The first search result, when I looked for "uhrr radio" was a repository by Oliver F4HTB, more on that in a bit. The second search result was something called "Universal Radio Hacker". I clicked on the link and discovered a mind boggling tool. There are times in your life when something flips, this was one of those times. It happened when I discovered "csdr" by Andras HA7ILM and again when I discovered "GNU Radio". Diving into "Universal Radio Hacker", by Dr. Johannes Pohl and Dr. Andreas Noack I was introduced to the art of decoding and generating digital radio signals. In 2018 it was presented for the first time during the USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, or WOOT, as a tool to discover, decode and identify exploits of proprietary IoT devices scattered all over the planet. As an aside, USENIX, Users Of Unix, since 1975. Back to radio. Universal Radio Hacker allows you to dissect recorded radio signals using all manner of interactive processes. When you go looking for it, and you should, I recommend that you start by watching some videos. You'll find an introductory play list on my YouTube channel. By the time you've seen those, you'll likely share my excitement. To encourage you further, the Universal Radio Hacker is open source, written in Python, and runs on Linux, MacOS and Windows. So far there have been 94 releases of the software, so it's seen significant development in the years since it was released into the wild. When installing it I was surprised to discover that its acronym was "uhr", not "uhrr". This was a relief since I still didn't remember what "uhrr" was all about and I couldn't imagine having forgotten Universal Radio Hacker. It turns out that the last time I looked at "uhrr" was apparently in 2021 when I shared my experience in an article titled "The remote edge..."; "uhrr" or "Universal Ham Radio Remote" is a tool that allows you to use a web browser to access a radio remotely. My little journey into unexpected diversions, distractions and discovery has led me into a path where several puzzle pieces have come together. For example, Universal Radio Hacker and GNU Radio can talk to each other, they're both written in Python, they're both open source, have a history of development and have a community of users. The LTE-Cell-Scanner, also open source, will allow me to calibrate most if not all of my radio gear and I'm once again inspired to keep digging into yet another aspect of this wonderful hobby. I'm sure that there are more than a thousand different hobbies under this roof. Go forth, explore, discover, be amazed, and stay curious! I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio The other day a fellow amateur asked me to help them with lowering their radio mast so they could do some maintenance on the antennas attached to it. This is not the first time I've been a participant in such an activity, but it was the first time I felt explicitly safe. Don't get me wrong, on previous occasions nothing bad happened, but there was always an undertone of "what-if" and an associated anxiety. This time was different. Before we did anything, we sat down, had a cup of coffee, talked and discussed what was going to happen. After coffee we looked at specifics and discussed the process in detail. Then we prepared. Clipping cable ties, winding up loose ends, disconnecting coax, and securing a pulley to a tree. We ran a winch line, discussed distances, looked at potential snags and coax lengths and angles, considered what would happen if something unexpected might happen and discussed various safety considerations, like never walking below the mast whilst it was in its most stressed position, half-way lowered and out of reach. Then we slowly went about doing what we talked about. All that sounds pretty reasonable, and it should. It was the first time I'd ever discussed in detail what the plan was, what could happen if something broke, if something got caught and any number of contingencies. We even discussed handling steel winch lines, something which I was unfamiliar with. Of course it's entirely possible that something bad could happen, something neither of us had considered, but we put ourselves in a position where we both felt safe after mitigating known risks and allowing leeway for unknown risks. Another word for this type of preparation is "Professionalism". It's a fraught word. You might recall me telling a story where I contacted the regulator to discuss wideband interference caused by a train-line, specifically blocking out a range of AM broadcast frequencies, including the emergency broadcast station. I revealed during that conversation that I was an amateur and had some experience with radio. The person I was speaking to shared that they were a "Professional", using a capital "P" to condescend that my amateur credentials were nothing in comparison to theirs. The conversation ended, the wideband interference is still there, years later. It's not the only time I've come across this weird relationship with this word "Professionalism". At one time I worked at a community broadcaster where I was one of the producers and presenters. If you're unfamiliar, it's essentially a special interest broadcaster, in this case radio, run by mostly volunteers. We were having a meeting to discuss plans and during that I raised the notion of "Professionalism" in relation to conduct, things like turning up on time for your shift, documenting labels correctly on tapes, keeping logs, broadcasting advertisements at the allocated time, etc. Unfortunately some in the group equated "Professionalism" with "Commercialism" and expressed their discontent with the notion vocally. I stopped volunteering there shortly after. This to say that I can understand that "Professionalism" has different meanings for different people. In a community like Amateur Radio it might mean that it's considered a taboo word, but I'd like to encourage you to think of it as a way of getting things done .. safely .. and to the betterment of the community. So, next time you have a working bee, an antenna party, a contest, or a ham-fest, think about how you conduct yourself, how you might improve the experience for yourself and for those around you. I call that "Professionalism". I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio The other day a report in "Amateur Radio Daily" caught my eye. Under the heading "IARU Considers Consolidation", I read that the International Amateur Radio Union, celebrating 100 years of representing our hobby, is considering significant change. Links in the report reveal a PDF document titled "IARU Consultation on Proposed Restructuring March 2025". The document, dated 21 March, outlines the structure of the IARU, four organisations, one for each ITU Region, and one global organisation, the International Secretariat. It provides some insights on how the funding arrangements between these organisations exist and goes on to talk about how the IARU operates, including incorporation, or not, currencies, committees, priorities and other background and historic information. All excellent. Stuff that should be public knowledge, but having spent the better part of a year reading IARU documents, this one brought several new eye opening things to the table. The document attributes no authors but is at least spell-checked in US English, and appears to be part of a discussion started long before I became an amateur. In 2005, the IARU started the "IARU 2025 Committee" to look into the future of the organisation. It concluded its work in 2012. In 2020 a new committee was started, the "Future Committee", consisting of representation from each of the regions. The introductory wording is curious and includes these words: "We can no longer afford not to move the process forward" - at least implying that this document is a foregone conclusion. Searching for the document on the IARU sites will give you no results. Searching for "Future Committee", gives you two results, neither actually having the words "Future Committee". The only reference which makes any sense in either of those two results, and only after the fact, is a paragraph, published on 12 October 2020, that refers to the Administrative Council, or AC, and states: "The AC received and discussed an in-depth report from its Working Group on the Future of IARU and agreed to steps for evolving toward a more flexible organization and strengthened relationships with all stakeholders in the global amateur radio community and telecommunications ecosystem." For a process that started 20 years ago, this is the first I've heard of it. Curious wouldn't you say, in an organisation that claims to represent both you and I? It's almost like the IARU wants to keep this whole thing a secret. There's more. The thrust of the document is to explore the notion of simplifying the operation of the IARU by consolidating the four organisations into one incorporated body based in Switzerland, where the IARU Region 1 organisation is currently incorporated. It goes on to discuss how this is great for the hobby, how it will save on resources and how it will allow the mostly volunteer run organisation to operate more democratically. It outlines the process for adoption, including a 60 day consultation period for the 167 Member Societies, as-in peak bodies in your country. I'll save you the suspense, the consultation period ended before I saw the document. There's a 30 day "Detailed Draft Proposal phase" and a "Final Proposal and Voting stage", neither of which are on any specific time-line that I could find. You might say, well, Onno, you're not a member society, it's none of your business. That's true. Here's the thing. Let me quote from Section 5, on page 11: "In many cases the IARU Member-Society does not represent the majority of the national amateur community." So .. not to belabour the point, the IARU, who is proud to represent Amateur Radio on the International Stage, writes in its own documentation that the organisation doesn't represent the majority of amateurs while claiming its intention to make the organisation more flexible and democratic. Gotta say, feeling all warm and fuzzy. In Section 6, the document goes into great detail about finance. I'm kidding, it has one sub-sub section about money, section 6.1.3, less than 10% of the document, no less explosive for its brevity. It states that each region contributes to the overall IARU budget, but that this contribution remains insufficient to cover the many critical representation efforts required. It goes on to say that "Historically, the ARRL has played a key role in bridging this financial gap". For its contribution, the ARRL currently nominates the President and Vice President which the member societies get to vote on. I wonder what happens if they don't vote for the nominated candidate and what happens when the ARRL is no longer first among equals, will it continue to fund the IARU? While pointing out that all direct representation of the IARU at the ITU are made by volunteers, as well as "nearly all" other activities, I wonder which activities are paid and how much? There's also discussion about a "not ideal" "compromise", namely that we'll have to be virtual attendees to save money. Really? In 2025, after a century of representing amateur radio, we're still attending meetings in person? Has nobody at the IARU heard of this new technology, you know, the one it claims to promote, radio? Or the more modern version, teleconference? You'd think that a bunch of volunteer radio amateurs would jump at the chance to debate things over radio. Moving on. The finance section includes an interesting statement. "Many regions have accumulated cash reserves" and "where these reserves are substantial and have resulted from a specific region's activities, they may need to be held in trust and designated exclusively for initiatives related to that former region". Let's unpack this. There's three regions. "Many regions" means more than one, but not all, so, two. In other words, one region has no money. Which one? Moreover, "substantial" reserves from "a specific region", means one of the other two, so, one. So, it made money, it's substantial, it's intended to be designated exclusively for that one region. Which one? The Wireless Institute of Australia, which claims to have existed longer than the IARU and the ARRL before it, was a federation. In 2004 the regulator indicated that it should consolidate its efforts because apparently the various state WIA organisations "could never agree on a single outcome". This organisation was incorporated in VK3 where it continues to exist as a first among equals. Curiously the Victorian, Tasmanian and South Australia with Northern Territory Divisions of the Wireless Institute of Australia are each still incorporated and active. Today if you're in VK6, like I am, your experience of the WIA is completely different from that if you're in VK3 and to a lesser extent VK2. Remind you of anything? The document mentions that "only fully paid up member-societies in good standing have the right to vote" and "The current fee structure will need to be harmonized across all three regions, which may lead to increased dues for some Member-Societies". That tells us that some member societies will have to pay more money and if they don't they won't be able to vote. I wonder if these are members of the region with all the money, or from the region without money? I'll remind you that member societies have already been acknowledged by the IARU as being underfunded, offering reduced services with some member societies being disbanded. The point being that we're finding out behind the scenes, after the fact, of a process that has been in play for 20 years, that aims to create a single harmonised body whilst exacerbating existing inequities, and doing so in secret. Is that the kind of body that you want to represent you on the world stage? Is this something that your member society knows about, is it actively participating, does it share that information with you or hide it? Are you informed, or did you learn more today from me than you have in the past 20 years? Before I leave you to your thoughts, credit to Cale K4HCK for publishing the story and thanks to their source for sharing the document. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio Right off the bat, let me start with a question. "What do you think you're doing?" To give you some context, it should come as no surprise that I'm talking about amateur radio and what it is that we do, you and I, when we "do amateur radio". Of course the answer is different for every person you ask, and it's likely to change over time. So, let's explore and fair warning, if you know me at all, you'll realise that I'll be asking more questions, so here goes. Is this an activity that you do, for yourself, or for others? Is it a hobby, or a vocation, or something else? Do you use this as part of your life outside this community and if you do, how? At this point I hope you're getting a sense of Deja-Vu all over again, in that I'm asking you to explore your own place in the community. I'm asking because it occurs to me that we spend an awful lot of time looking in the other direction. How do we compare skills and knowledge against other amateurs, how does our shack compare with another, how does our antenna stack up, which modes have you used, what things have you activated, how much power do you use? All things that might form part of the activity of amateur radio, but fail to look at you as a person and your role in this. For example, have you considered if you're interested in helping new amateurs, or would you rather just do your own thing? What about how you gain skills? Would you rather read a book, watch a YouTube video, attend a class or play with others? If you're considering upgrading your license to gain more responsibilities, are you doing that for yourself, or are you doing it because of peer pressure? If you've been part of the hobby for a little while you'll have discovered that radio amateurs are everywhere, often in unexpected places. With that comes the realisation that this implies that we have members who represent all of humanity in all its many-splendored complexity. Where in that spectrum are you and what is your role in participating in that wider community, and is your role what you want it to be? One of the themes I've discovered over the years is insecurity. A recurring perception is that amateurs who've attained the highest license level are somehow "more" amateur than those who are on another journey. Where do you fit in that? How do you perceive amateurs with differing license classes? Do you apply the same metric to moped, car and truck licenses? How do you compare yourself against those who are not amateurs and how did you step into your license? I'm going to stop with the questions now and leave you with a thought. The hobby of amateur radio is a playground where you have the freedom to explore radio and all that it offers, but nobody said that you need to limit yourself to radio. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio Around the world are thousands of associations, groups of people, clubs if you like, that represent radio amateurs. Some of those associations are anointed with a special status, that of "member society" or "peak body", which allows them to represent their country with their own governments and on the international stage to the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union, through a global organisation, the IARU, the International Amateur Radio Union. Some of these are known across our whole community, the ARRL in the USA, the RSGB in the UK, and the WIA in Australia. Some much less so, the CRAC, the Chinese Radio Amateurs Club, or the ARSI, the Amateur Radio Society of India, for example. In an attempt to get a deeper understanding of what distinguishes these organisations, I visited a dozen member society websites. Cultural sensibilities and aesthetics aside, the variety and sense of priority is both pleasing and astounding. Starting close to home, the WIA, the Wireless Institute of Australia, shows news as the most important and the top story is a radio contact between the International Space Station and a school, held about two weeks ago. The ERAU, the Estonian Radio Amateurs Association, features an article about the 2025 General Meeting outlining who was there, what was discussed and thanking the participants for their contributions. When I visited, the ARRL, the American Radio Relay League, top news item, was the renewed defence of the 902-928 MHz Amateur Radio Band, from a few days ago. The most important issue for the ARRL is that you read the latest edition of QST magazine, but only if you're a member. The RSGB, the Radio Society of Great Britain, has an odd landing page that links to the main site, which features much of the same content. The latest news is "Mental Health Awareness Week" and encourages us to celebrate kindness in our community. The DARC, the German Amateur Radio Club, has a page full of announcements and the top one was an article about current solar activity including a coronal hole and various solar flares. The ERASD, the Egyptian Radio Amateurs Society for Development, uses qsl.net as its main website. It features many images with text, presumably in Arabic, that unfortunately I was not able to translate. Curiously the landing page features some English text that welcomes all interested to join. I confess that I love the juxtaposition between a Yaesu FT-2000 transceiver and the images of Tutankhamun and the pyramids. The RAC, the Radio Amateurs of Canada, use their homepage to promote its purpose, and features many pictures of their bi-monthly magazine, which you can only read if you're a member, which is where many of the homepage links seem to go. The RCA, the Radio Club of Argentina, is promoting the 2024-2025 Railway Marathon, including links to descriptions of what constitutes a Railway Activation, how to reserve your station, and upcoming and past activations. There's also a reminder to renew your license. The ARSI, the Amateur Radio Society of India, has a very sparse landing page showing their mission and not much else. Clicking around gives you lots of information about the history, activities, awards and the like. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out how to become licensed in India. There's hardly any images. In contrast, the URA, the Union of Radio Amateurs of Andorra, lands you on a page with contact details and not much else. Clicking through the site gives you lots of pictures of happy people and maps, lots of maps. The KARL, the Korean Amateur Radio League, features an announcement with a link to the 24th Amateur Radio Direction Finding, from a week ago, but it requires a login to actually read it. The JARL, the Japan Amateur Radio League, features an announcement to a form you can complete to join the "List of stations from which you do not wish to receive QSL cards." The NZART, the New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters, features a big button to latest news and clicking on it shows the "Jock White Field Day", which was held several months ago. I wasn't able to see the CRAC, the Chinese Radio Amateurs Club, since the page didn't load for me. The "Wayback machine", also known as archive.org, from a capture a few days ago, showed a news item announcing the intent to organise the 1st Class C Amateur Radio Technical "something", I say "something" because I cannot actually load the article and see what it has to say. The event was scheduled for a month ago, the announcement was from several months ago. Content aside, finding sites was interesting too, mind you, there's plenty of member associations that don't have any web presence at all. Is that by choice, or necessity? The IARU list of member societies conflicts with the list of national organisations shown on Wikipedia. The IARU has about 160 entries, I say about, since the list isn't really formatted as much as it's congealed. Let's just say, perhaps a table for tabular data might be a novel approach. Wikipedia is slightly better formatted, it lists 93 national organisations. As it happens, both include a link to the national organisation for China, which is either the Chinese Radio Sports Association, with apparently two different acronyms, either CRSAOA, or CRSA, or if you believe the IARU as a source, it's the one I mentioned earlier, the CRAC. I don't know which one is right, but at least we can assume that the IARU page was updated formally, rather than edited by someone on the internet. Regardless of which one is the "real" Chinese national amateur radio organisation, none of the websites loaded for me. Let's move on. It's interesting that several non-English sites like Korea, Japan and Germany feature a button that allows their site to be translated into English. What's even more interesting is that the English version of the site is not in any way the same content. In many cases it appears to be information relevant to English visitors rather than a translation. One notable exception is Estonia, which allows a visitor to read their site in Estonian or English right out of the box. Unsurprisingly, the ARRL website has no buttons for Spanish, even though that represents about 13 percent of the USA population, let alone any other language. I'd encourage you to visit a few and see what you can learn about the other members of our community around the world. My visits leave me with questions. What do these organisations stand for? What do they do? Are they there for amateurs, for aspirant members, the general public, for regulators, for their members, for fund raising and advertising, or international visitors and tourism? It seems to me that looking at just a few of these organisations reveals a great many things about how they understand their own role and how they deliver service and just how much money they have to play with to make that happen. I'll leave you to ponder how effective they might be and what your role is in that endeavour. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio Since becoming a licensed amateur in 2010, I have spent a good amount of time putting together my thoughts on a weekly basis about the hobby and the community surrounding amateur radio. As you might know, my interest is eclectic, some might say random, but by enlarge, I go where the unicorns appear. Over a year ago I mentioned in passing a community called HamSCI. The label on the box is "Ham Radio Science Citizen Investigation", which gives you a sense of what this is all about. It was started by amateur radio scientists who study upper atmospheric and space physics. More formally, the HamSCI mission is the "Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art." If you visit the hamsci.org website, and you should, you'll discover dozens of universities and around 1,300 people, many of whom are licensed radio amateurs, who are asking questions and discovering answers that matter to more than just our amateur community. For the eighth time the HamSCI community held an annual "workshop", really, an opportunity to get together and share ideas, in person and across the internet, a conference by any other name. Under the banner theme of "HamSCI's Big Year", over two days, 56 people representing 27 different organisations across 61 sessions, tutorials, discussions, tours, posters and demonstrations, explored topics all over our hobby, from the Personal Space Weather Network, capable of making ground based measurements of the space environment, to the Whistler Catcher Pi, a project to record the VLF spectrum to 48 kHz using a Raspberry Pi. You'll find research into HF antennas for the DASI or Distributed Array of Small Instruments project and associated NSF grants, exploring measurements of HF and VLF, combined with GPS and magnetometer across 20 to 30 stations. There's discussions on how to explore Geospace Data, such as information coming from the Personal Space Weather Station network, or PSWS, using the OpenSpace project and dealing with the challenges of visualising across a wide scale, all the way up to the entire known universe. Did I mention that there's work underway to add PSWS compatible receivers to Antarctica? There reports on observations and modelling of the ionospheric effects of the April 2024 solar eclipse QSO party, including Doppler radio, HF time differences, and Medium Wave signal enhancements, not to mention planning and promoting future meteor scatter QSO parties. There's, post-sunset sporadic-F propagation, large scale travelling ionospheric disturbances, GPS disciplined beacons, the physical nature of sporadic-E propagation and plenty more. As you might have heard me say at one time or another, the difference between fiddling and science is writing it down. It means that you'll find every session has accompanying documentation, charts, graphics and scientific papers. Remember, there's eight years of reading to catch up with, or learn from, or play with. The publications and presentations section on the hamsci.org website currently has 526 different entries. You might not be interested in the impact of radio wave and GPS scintillation, or rapid fluctuation in strength, caused during the G5 geomagnetic storm that occurred on the 10th of May 2024, or a statistical study of ion temperature anistropy using AMISR, or Advanced Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar data .. or you might. In case you're curious, "anistropy" is the property of being directionally dependent, in other words, it matters in which direction you measure, which might have some relevance to you if you consider that we think of the ionosphere and radio paths being reciprocal. If it reminds you of isotropy, that's because they're opposites. The point being, that amateur radio is a great many things to different people. If you're a scientist, budding, graduate or tenured, there's a home for you within this amazing hobby. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio Recently I saw a social media post featuring a screenshot of some random website with pretty charts and indicators describing "current HF propagation". Aside from lacking a date, it helpfully included notations like "Solar Storm Imminent" and "Band Closed". It made me wonder, not for the first time, what the reliability of this type of notification is. Does it actually indicate what you might expect when you get on air to make noise, is it globally relevant, is the data valid or real-time? You get the idea. How do you determine the relationship between this pretty display and reality? Immediately the WSPR or Weak Signal Propagation Reporter database came to mind. It's a massive collection of signal reports capturing time, band, station and other parameters, one of which is the Signal To Noise ratio or SNR. If the number of sun spots, or a geomagnetic index change affected propagation, can we see an effect on the SNR? Although there's close on a million records per day, I'll note in advance that my current approach of taking a daily average across all reports on a specific band, completely ignores the number of reports, the types and direction of antennas, the distance between stations, transmitter power, local noise or any number of other variables. Using the online "wspr.live" database, looking only at 2024, I linked the daily recorded WSPR SNR average per band to the Sun Spot Numbers and Geomagnetic Index and immediately ran into problems. For starters the daily Sun Spot Number or SSN, from the Royal Observatory in Belgium does not appear to be complete. I'm not yet sure why. For example, there's only 288 days of SSN data in 2024. Does this mean that the observers were on holiday on the other 78 days, or was the SSN zero? Curiously there's 60 days where there's more than one recording and as a bonus, on New Years Eve 2024, there's three recordings, all with the same time stamp, midnight, with 181, 194 and 194 sun spots, so I took the daily average. Also, I ignored the timezone, since that's not apparent. Similarly the Geomagnetic Index data from the Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, Germany has several weird artefacts around 1970's data, but fortunately not within 2024 that I saw. The data is collected every three hours, so I averaged that, too. After excluding days where the SSN was missing, I ran into the next issue, my database query was too big, understandable, since there are many reports in this database, 2 billion, give or take, for 2024 alone. Normally I'd be running this type of query on my own hardware, but you might know that I lost my main research computer last year, well, I didn't lose it as such, I can see it from where I am right now, but it won't power up. Money aside, I've been working on it, but being unceremoniously moved from Intel to ARM is not something I'd recommend. I created a script that extracted the data, one day at a time, with 30 seconds between each query. Three hours later I had preliminary numbers. The result was 6,239 records across 116 bands, which of course should immediately spark interest, since we don't really have that many bands. I sorted the output by the number of reports per band and discovered that the maximum number of days per band was 276. This in turn should surprise you, since there's 365 days in a year, well technically a smidge more, but for now, 365 is fine, not to mention that 2024 was a leap-year. So, what happened to the other 90 days? We know that 78 are missing because the SSN wasn't in the database but the other 12 days? I'm going to ignore that too. I removed all the bands that had less than 276 reports per day, leaving 17 bands, including the well known 13 MHz band, the what, yeah, there's a few others like that. I removed the obvious weird band, but what's the 430 MHz band, when the 70cm band in WSPR is defined as 432 MHz? I manually created 15 charts plotting dates against SNR, SSN, Kp and ap indices. Remember, this is a daily average of each of these, just to get a handle on what I'm looking at. Immediately several things become apparent. There are plenty of bands where the relationship between the average SNR and the other influences appear to be negligible. We can see the average SNR move up and down across the year, following the seasons - which raises a specific question. If the SNR is averaged across the whole planet from all WSPR stations, why are we seeing seasonal variation, given that while it's Winter here in VK, it's Summer on the other side of the equator? If you compare the maximum average SNR of a band against the minimum average SNR of the same band, you can get a sense of how much the sun spots and geomagnetic index influences the planet as a whole on that band. The band with the least amount of variation is the 30m band. Said differently, with all the changes going on around propagation, the 30m band appears to be the most stable, followed by the 12m and 15m bands. The SNR across all of HF varies, on average, no more than 5 dB. The higher the band, the more variation there is. Of course it's also possible that there's less reports there, so we might be seeing the impact of individual station variables more keenly. It's too early for conclusions, but I can tell you that this gives us plenty of new questions to ask. I'm Onno VK6FLAB