Back in 2012, the RSGB's Len Paget sent out my personal data, without my consent, whilst representing the RSGB, to an external organisation that had absolutely nothing to do with amateur radio, and an organisation of which he wrongly assumed I was a member. Only Len Paget can explain why that happened.
Following this incident, the Information Commissioner's Office censured the RSGB as having been "unlikely" to have been compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998. Short of a legal determination by a Court, those words are the closest the ICO can come to saying there was no compliance.
The RSGB at the time said it hired consultants to advise them on this issue, and that data controls would be improved. After weeks of saying nothing to me, I asked whether the RSGB thought an apology might be in order. Evenutally, an apology was issued, but with the legal disclaimer of 'without prejudice'.
Yesterday, in an entirely different and certainly not deliberate set of circumstances, the RSGB's ARISS coordinator, Ciaran Morgan, sent out an e-mail to multiple recipients without blind carbon copying. As a result, each recipient could see the whole list of private e-mail accounts to which the e-mail had been sent.
It's twenty years since the Data Protection Act came into being and, whilst this latest incident is accepted as a genuine accident and an apology issed by the RSGB, it does show the RSGB, like many organisations, is very slow to adhere to the law. I can't comment on Ciaran Morgan's thinking at the time, but one of the hardest issues to overcome with e-mail is where the individual 'forgets' he is part of a wider organisation that has serious legal obligations, and sees e-mail as informal.
What the RSGB seems in need of is getting all its staff and volunteers who handle personal data to understand very well they are not sending e-mails on behalf of themselves.
Whilst some of these inadvertent data releases might appear trivial to the outsider, it may not necessarily be so. More than one of the e-mail addresses released were state school accounts. Others may have concerns about abusive partners discovering their private e-mail addresses.
In the end, however serious or not you might think these things are, it is the law, and it is not for the RSGB to assume you are 'OK' with passing personal data around to people you don't know, unless specific consent has been given. Neither is it 'OK' for the RSGB to think this is just radio talk amongst friends.
The ICO has received a referral, asking them to ensure the new General Manager - and the RSGB as a whole - is clear as to its legal duties. Both Morgan and the General Manager have issued immediate apologies over this latest incident. On my suggestion, they also issued an apology to all the other recipients who had their data released.
Those mentioned in this post have a right of reply, noting that I retain all correspondence in both cases with the RSGB and the ICO as conclusive evidence of truth in reporting.
Thursday, 20 October 2016
Wednesday, 19 October 2016
Amateur radio - the potential
In a recent QST edition - I can't remember which one - I found a really nice statement of support for ham radio by the FCC.
On searching online today, I found that same message as reproduced by the ARRL. The message is:
"97.1(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s unique ability to enhance international goodwill."
This point - the enhancement of international goodwill, is readily familiar to all of us who operate radio on a regular basis.
We find ourselves making instant friends, sometimes talking to parts of the world torn by war and strife. Other times, we might talk with people in nations we are told are contentious, or might not even be formally recognised by others. Almost all of us rise to the challenge of setting politics to one side, and making goodwill the sole focus of our efforts.
I'm very glad to see this FCC support engrained in the radio 'constitution', as it were. Whilst the UK government also has a long-standing message of general support, it does tend to see ham radio in purely technical terms, perhaps a leftover from the war years, when hams might be useful to the nation. That does little to engender a supportive attitude from ordinary members of the public.
I hope the ARRL, the RSGB and indeed all other representative bodies read, absorb and repeat often the basic point that more cynical members of the public should hear: we may appear a bit sad and niche in our shacks, but we are actually performing a vital, unpaid role in support of peace and goodwill, every day.
Let's celebrate amateur radio for what we all know it is: a great force for peace where others fail.
On searching online today, I found that same message as reproduced by the ARRL. The message is:
"97.1(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s unique ability to enhance international goodwill."
This point - the enhancement of international goodwill, is readily familiar to all of us who operate radio on a regular basis.
 |
| Courtesy DL3BC |
We find ourselves making instant friends, sometimes talking to parts of the world torn by war and strife. Other times, we might talk with people in nations we are told are contentious, or might not even be formally recognised by others. Almost all of us rise to the challenge of setting politics to one side, and making goodwill the sole focus of our efforts.
I'm very glad to see this FCC support engrained in the radio 'constitution', as it were. Whilst the UK government also has a long-standing message of general support, it does tend to see ham radio in purely technical terms, perhaps a leftover from the war years, when hams might be useful to the nation. That does little to engender a supportive attitude from ordinary members of the public.
I hope the ARRL, the RSGB and indeed all other representative bodies read, absorb and repeat often the basic point that more cynical members of the public should hear: we may appear a bit sad and niche in our shacks, but we are actually performing a vital, unpaid role in support of peace and goodwill, every day.
Let's celebrate amateur radio for what we all know it is: a great force for peace where others fail.
Saturday, 15 October 2016
Thai king - RSGB plays it safe.
The RSGB, formerly the London Wireless Club, is a strange organisation that seems to revel in big-wiggery and deference to what it sees as 'important' people.
This week saw the demise of King Rama IX, of Thailand. Whilst a general summary of his reign might conclude that he was, like many royal elites, a pragmatist who did what he had to to maintain 'stability' (read: preserve his position), he was also given to brutality at times.
Probably a good job, then, that the RSGB seems to have consulted the king's track record, and found quite a few terrible instances, such as the 1976 Thammasat University massacre, before issuing a very brief, terse SK announcement in this week's GB2RS.
A day later, the ARRL also released a gushing announcement, celebrating the king's many interests (but none of the bad ones.) At least they admitted that he almost never used amateur radio.
Perhaps it might have been more fitting to the memory of those who suffered under Rama IX - and the fact that this wasn't ever an active ham - for the RSGB and ARRL simply to have ignored his death.
 |
| HS1A. Very dead. Image: WikiCommons, author unknown. |
This week saw the demise of King Rama IX, of Thailand. Whilst a general summary of his reign might conclude that he was, like many royal elites, a pragmatist who did what he had to to maintain 'stability' (read: preserve his position), he was also given to brutality at times.
 |
| King Rama IX switched sides - and permitted atrocities - when his position was at stake. |
Probably a good job, then, that the RSGB seems to have consulted the king's track record, and found quite a few terrible instances, such as the 1976 Thammasat University massacre, before issuing a very brief, terse SK announcement in this week's GB2RS.
A day later, the ARRL also released a gushing announcement, celebrating the king's many interests (but none of the bad ones.) At least they admitted that he almost never used amateur radio.
Perhaps it might have been more fitting to the memory of those who suffered under Rama IX - and the fact that this wasn't ever an active ham - for the RSGB and ARRL simply to have ignored his death.
Monday, 10 October 2016
SSTV Surprise!
Over the past week, 12m has sprung back into full swing.
OK, it's not like 2015, when you could have long, armchair QSOs with anybody you liked across the pond. But it's not too bad.
At lunchtime yesterday, whilst scanning around 12m for some SSB signals with the 3 ele LFA Yagi, I stopped at 24.940MHz, where, for the first time ever on that band, I heard an SSTV transmission. Thinking it was probably a Spanish AN400 or something, I fired-up the SSTV software, just out of curiosity.
I was amazed to see a 3B station coming through with a really clear signal. In my surprise, I confused 3B with 5B. Eventually, it clicked this fine signal was coming from Mauritius!
That left me very satisfied for the day, and yet another example of 12m coming good when all supposed experts predict no propagation.
OK, it's not like 2015, when you could have long, armchair QSOs with anybody you liked across the pond. But it's not too bad.
At lunchtime yesterday, whilst scanning around 12m for some SSB signals with the 3 ele LFA Yagi, I stopped at 24.940MHz, where, for the first time ever on that band, I heard an SSTV transmission. Thinking it was probably a Spanish AN400 or something, I fired-up the SSTV software, just out of curiosity.
 |
| Wow! |
I was amazed to see a 3B station coming through with a really clear signal. In my surprise, I confused 3B with 5B. Eventually, it clicked this fine signal was coming from Mauritius!
That left me very satisfied for the day, and yet another example of 12m coming good when all supposed experts predict no propagation.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Signal reports - mind your noise floor!
Are you a keen user of digital modes? I certainly am!
In fact, for the past few years, as kids grew up and had early bed times, I was only able to transmit regularly thanks to digital modes and the lack of need to shout down a microphone!
During the years, I've very often noted the sometimes large difference in received and sent 'dB' (signal-to-noise across 2500Hz) reports using, for example, JT65 or JT9 modes. This large difference can be present both when each station has a simple omnidirectional antenna, and when I am using a good Yagi, with the other using a simple antenna.
The question, then, is why is there this difference? A little experiment this afternoon showed one of the most significant factors in this phenomenon - electrical noise.
I've a simple single experimental PV solar panel that feeds a battery DC lighting system, and also, during good days, feeds a small wattage into the AC mains. The inverter, like most, produces modest RFI, but is perfectly tolerable, so long as it is producing and not 'hunting' for power on cloudier days, above 80m, which is only ever used here during the night anyway. When it gets in the way of radio, it can be entirely shut down, day or night.
So, this afternoon, I received an R9 station in western Siberia on 15m. His report from here was initially -16dB, which is not a bad signal - and he could have been using low power. But when I turned the inverter off, and the RFI noise floor dropped substantially, the R9 station shot up to a steady -1dB for the next two transmissions. The other stations jumped in strength also.
Clearly, from this simple test, one reason why I almost never get a signal report better than the one sent is because the vast majority of people are living in settings where their noise floor is significantly higher than mine, here in the electrically-quiet countryside.
So, those folk who get really very excited when I send them a better signal report than their software gave me should really be less gleeful and realise this is only happening in most cases because, sadly, they have a noisy setting that is masking others' signals.
In fact, for the past few years, as kids grew up and had early bed times, I was only able to transmit regularly thanks to digital modes and the lack of need to shout down a microphone!
During the years, I've very often noted the sometimes large difference in received and sent 'dB' (signal-to-noise across 2500Hz) reports using, for example, JT65 or JT9 modes. This large difference can be present both when each station has a simple omnidirectional antenna, and when I am using a good Yagi, with the other using a simple antenna.
The question, then, is why is there this difference? A little experiment this afternoon showed one of the most significant factors in this phenomenon - electrical noise.
 |
| Sorry, terrible conditions on HF here... [Image: Wikicommons] |
I've a simple single experimental PV solar panel that feeds a battery DC lighting system, and also, during good days, feeds a small wattage into the AC mains. The inverter, like most, produces modest RFI, but is perfectly tolerable, so long as it is producing and not 'hunting' for power on cloudier days, above 80m, which is only ever used here during the night anyway. When it gets in the way of radio, it can be entirely shut down, day or night.
So, this afternoon, I received an R9 station in western Siberia on 15m. His report from here was initially -16dB, which is not a bad signal - and he could have been using low power. But when I turned the inverter off, and the RFI noise floor dropped substantially, the R9 station shot up to a steady -1dB for the next two transmissions. The other stations jumped in strength also.
Clearly, from this simple test, one reason why I almost never get a signal report better than the one sent is because the vast majority of people are living in settings where their noise floor is significantly higher than mine, here in the electrically-quiet countryside.
So, those folk who get really very excited when I send them a better signal report than their software gave me should really be less gleeful and realise this is only happening in most cases because, sadly, they have a noisy setting that is masking others' signals.
Friday, 30 September 2016
Delta Loop Matching - D'oh!
Recent posts have been all about trying to fathom out a series of problems that sprung from nowhere with my delta loop for 15m.
The delta has worked through hurricane winds for more than six years, worked global DX, and never complained a jot.
I started the investigations when I could hear the received signals breaking up intermittently, revealing a problem somewhere.
Having eliminated the audio from the rig as the problem, it was time to follow the coax!
Throughout this story, the rig itself - an FT-450 - and two standard SWR meters all reported perfect happiness at 1:1.15.
My SARK-110 analayser, though, had other ideas. It showed a good curve from time to time, but had lots of noise. The noise initially appeared to be down to the MCX connector, but eventully proved to be fine.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I found plenty of problems when I started to dig:
(1) badly corroded coax, which I replaced.
(2) a somewhat damp 4:1 balun, though it was only condensation and in fact, seems to work fine
(3) a supplied patch lead from the SARK to the outside world was defective and lost continuity.
(4) a metal fatigue fracture had developed in the antenna's hard-drawn wire, which was simply cut away and a new join made.
The fifth and final problem I discovered, when I just couldn't get the impedance and SWR curves to make any sense despite all the renovation work, was sorted out at past midnight last night!
It turned out that the 4:1 balun was the wrong step-down for the delta, which is corner fed for mechanical simplicity in the 15m antenna's case. Bypassing the 4:1 with a pair of crocodile clipped leads and connected to a 2:1 yielded the perfect curves for both.
So, I guess the take-home messages are:
(1) a good SWR at an analogue meter can fool you into false security if the impedance is wrong at the antenna
(2) an analyser, or certainly the SARK, can reveal problems that otherwise you would either not know about, or not find out about until they might pose a risk to your rig.
(3) it seems you can always trust a SARK analyser
(4) RG58/U is not a good coax to use (well, we all start somewhere!) and may have such losses even in 15m-runs that it can mask mismatch problems.
The delta has worked through hurricane winds for more than six years, worked global DX, and never complained a jot.
I started the investigations when I could hear the received signals breaking up intermittently, revealing a problem somewhere.
Having eliminated the audio from the rig as the problem, it was time to follow the coax!
Throughout this story, the rig itself - an FT-450 - and two standard SWR meters all reported perfect happiness at 1:1.15.
My SARK-110 analayser, though, had other ideas. It showed a good curve from time to time, but had lots of noise. The noise initially appeared to be down to the MCX connector, but eventully proved to be fine.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I found plenty of problems when I started to dig:
(1) badly corroded coax, which I replaced.
(2) a somewhat damp 4:1 balun, though it was only condensation and in fact, seems to work fine
(3) a supplied patch lead from the SARK to the outside world was defective and lost continuity.
(4) a metal fatigue fracture had developed in the antenna's hard-drawn wire, which was simply cut away and a new join made.
The fifth and final problem I discovered, when I just couldn't get the impedance and SWR curves to make any sense despite all the renovation work, was sorted out at past midnight last night!
It turned out that the 4:1 balun was the wrong step-down for the delta, which is corner fed for mechanical simplicity in the 15m antenna's case. Bypassing the 4:1 with a pair of crocodile clipped leads and connected to a 2:1 yielded the perfect curves for both.
So, I guess the take-home messages are:
(1) a good SWR at an analogue meter can fool you into false security if the impedance is wrong at the antenna
(2) an analyser, or certainly the SARK, can reveal problems that otherwise you would either not know about, or not find out about until they might pose a risk to your rig.
(3) it seems you can always trust a SARK analyser
(4) RG58/U is not a good coax to use (well, we all start somewhere!) and may have such losses even in 15m-runs that it can mask mismatch problems.
Sunday, 25 September 2016
SWR Anomaly! (revised)
Yesterday, I reported on the problems of corroded coax, and a successful fix.
Well, sort of! Whilst connected to a standard SWR meter, or when using the rig's own internal SWR monitor, all was well in the world of the antenna match.
But, on connecting my trusty SARK-110 analyser to the antenna, I just couldn't get a stable reading. One minute it was showing a nice curve with low SWR, the next, it was showing a steady SWR of 5 or more. There was no such instability at the old-fashioned SWR meter or rig. The key to the problem was that the curve would often shown the hints of a good curve, but with horrendous noise spikes all over it.
This took me a while to sort out, because the strange MCX connector on the SARK never fills me (or some others) with confidence; I do wish it was something more robust-looking, even though it does seem quite well secured to the circuit board.
The problem got more and more unclear as days went by. One moment it would report a nice curve in the middle of the band and the next, some senseless curve that took off towards 26MHz.
Mightily cheesed-off this lunchtime, I disconnected the delta and connected an alternative feed line to it. This resulted in the SARK reporting an open circuit! I was certain both feed lines were perfect. This had to mean something to do with the SARK was at fault.
Eventually, with a multimeter, I checked the continuity of all the connectors and cable hitched-up to the analyser, to discover the real source of the problem: an intermittent break in the SMA patch lead supplied with the SARK-110. In case I had really lost track of what I was doing by now, I hooked the whole analyser system up to a dummy load and you can see the result below:
A new patch lead is on its way from RS Components...
Well, sort of! Whilst connected to a standard SWR meter, or when using the rig's own internal SWR monitor, all was well in the world of the antenna match.
But, on connecting my trusty SARK-110 analyser to the antenna, I just couldn't get a stable reading. One minute it was showing a nice curve with low SWR, the next, it was showing a steady SWR of 5 or more. There was no such instability at the old-fashioned SWR meter or rig. The key to the problem was that the curve would often shown the hints of a good curve, but with horrendous noise spikes all over it.
This took me a while to sort out, because the strange MCX connector on the SARK never fills me (or some others) with confidence; I do wish it was something more robust-looking, even though it does seem quite well secured to the circuit board.
The problem got more and more unclear as days went by. One moment it would report a nice curve in the middle of the band and the next, some senseless curve that took off towards 26MHz.
Mightily cheesed-off this lunchtime, I disconnected the delta and connected an alternative feed line to it. This resulted in the SARK reporting an open circuit! I was certain both feed lines were perfect. This had to mean something to do with the SARK was at fault.
Eventually, with a multimeter, I checked the continuity of all the connectors and cable hitched-up to the analyser, to discover the real source of the problem: an intermittent break in the SMA patch lead supplied with the SARK-110. In case I had really lost track of what I was doing by now, I hooked the whole analyser system up to a dummy load and you can see the result below:
 |
| The impedance (red) going somewhere odd, whilst the SWR is up in the sky! |
A new patch lead is on its way from RS Components...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)