Commmunications

[Jerry]

 Hello folks!

I notice that there is not a section on "Communications " alone, so I'll put it here.

First question:  What kinds of HF antennas do your Wings use on their corporate vans? I'm very curious.  Do they work well?  Can they switch freqs easily?  Can they work on ANY frequency the Micoms do? Do you use the "hamstick" thing?  Do you keep multiple hamsticks in the van to switch to a different channel?

In my squadron, I am using what is called a "screwdriver".  Some of you might have heard of it if you are also a ham licensee.  Anyway, this antenna has an efficient loading coil inside a tube that is driven with a cordless driver--hence the name "screwdriver".  When one wants to operate on a particular frequency, he presses a button on the dash to resonate the antenna to the desired frequency. There are several ways to determine how and where the antenna is performing, but we'll save that for later.  The botton line is, the vehicle is able to operate on ANY frequency assigned to the Micom radio and do so within seconds--even while motoring down the road at 55 per!  It fairly "whips up" (pardon the pun) on the ham stick at the lower frequencies we use and, in fact, we sometimes call the entire NC Wing HF net from this van while sitting at the local airport! Most of the other vans cannot do this since they have those hamstick things which are (sorry, but it is true!) absolutely AWFUL at lower frequencies (and, too bad, lurkers, I am not gonna say which frequencies--CAP communicators will know which frequencies are used for nets!)  Those of you on the East Coast *may* hear CKH 541 from NC, and it has a "half-screwdriver" mobile antenna on their SQ bldg in the central part of the state; I built it, and it gets out like gangbusters!!

Anyway, I'll stop here and wait for your answers. If there is interest in discussing HF (my favorite CAP radio modes). meantime,what's in your wallet--er, uh, VAN?


Jerry

[Jerry]

Nobody?


Jerry

[arajca]

In CO, we do not use HF in our corporate vans. Only the Comm Van has HF, and I don't know what kind of antenna it uses. Many wings are probably in the same situation.

[Skyray]

Back in my CAP days I used to drive a VW 714 with a Yaesu and a "Texas Bugcatcher" on HF.  I had reasonalbly good coverage on 65 meters all over Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and most of Florida.  Sparrow 1003.

BTW Jerry, you sound like you might be around Burlington occassionally.  You ever run into a Pointer Cadet 6000 that had a grey bottom and an orange case?  I lent it to Chuck for a SarEx some years ago, and then got thrown out of CAP and never got it back.

[Jerry]

Not having HF in most of the coporate vans is, to me, an invitation for DISASTER!! Here in NC we have a variety of terrain that cannot be successfully covered with VHF. In the mountains, oh......I suppose
VHF is fine if you have a repeater on the mountaintop you just descended, but from down in the valley, VHF is a useless as mammaries on a boar hog in many cases.  And what are you going to do if a hurricane--something WE definitely encounter--knocks out those repeaters we have become so dependent upon?  Not only it is ill-advised, it is dangerous in that VHF relies upon fixed plant and the power grid. Physical damage or terrorist actions against such installations can seriously hamper our commanders' abilities to coordinate and control their resources.  Indeed, one can deploy airborne, or portable repeaters but the damands placed on them and the extent of the tasking can quickly prove to be not enough.  There's where HF shines!  With a variety of frequencies from the bottom to the top of our assigned spectrum, HF can fill the bill that VHF often can't.  *Some* people regard HF as "ancient" or out of date, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  Here's another example:

  At a recent SAREX, we were using VHF for out tactical comms (as expected).  However, due to physical limitations and the number of operators available, it became apparent that the VHF traffic was quickly overtaxing the two operators in the radio room. Not that these experienced operators couldn't handle it, but there were only so many radios available resulting in airborne traffic and ground traffic being delayed.  Our ground team was out about 45 miles from mission base. I told them to go to "Channel XX" which is the highest
SSB frequency we use (experienced operators know what that one is). This separated OUR ground team from the other two teams that were on VHF, relieving the congestion and speeding up the info to and from the IC.

This frequency is one that has fallen into disuse and has often been subjected to "freebanders" (again you have to be an experienced radio op to know what that is ). Yet with the increased power allocated to it (used to be 5 watts only) and SSB mode, communications managers would be SURPRISED at what that frequency can achieve.

Another advantage to HF is it is semi-immune to ambulance chasers and news hounds because *most* scanners can't copy SSB or AM (except for aircraft).  Ever been on a SAR and had the media to show up wanting to question you about a search, OR, worse, show up where the ground team/van is? (We disguise critical info with code words, etc).  But, still, HF is, in the tactical sense, more secure when it comes to scanner enthusiasts listening in and showing up at a crash ("Duh, whut's this h'yar part that fell off?  YIPES!")

So, to me, it is rather shocking to find that, as a matter of policy, communications managers are not including HF in their total comm. plan! When the repeaters are OUT, the power grid has failed, commanders and IC's are blinded, HF mobiles are the ones that WILL save the day.  Deployed to any area and serving as their own power supply, they can rapidly gather information to IC's and other authorities and facilitate the rapid application of forces and supplies to meet the need.  Another example.

A couple of years ago a hurricane had devastated Eastern NC and had turned north and out to sea.  Our squadron's van was deployed in the area tasked with damage assessment, ELT shut-downs, and other jobs as needed.   North Carolina has VAST areas of flat country down east and it is hard to have enough repeaters to cover
it all.  CAP AND Ham repeaters were damaged and this van was operating on HF somewhere between 65 and 20 Meters (again most communicators will know where ) when out of the blue, a strange callsign appeared. It was a USAF Hurricane Hunter out of Mississippi
requesting relay to his base! Conditions at that time just wouldn't allow him to reach his home, but CAP was able to achieve this thru our HF links to the state EOC and, thus, to Mississippi.  We thought it was pretty nice to be able to do that, and USAF thought so, too--and SAID so.  What if we hadn't HAD that link?

So, to me, to leave out HF is inviting BIG trouble. We will only find out when its too late and the fix-plant resources don't work, and the cellphones die.  ARE we becoming TOO dependent on "techology"? I hope not!

Jerry

[arajca]

There is this small issue of money - or rather the lack thereof. We are still using wide band only radios because we can't afford to upgrade them. When the transition hits, our comm capability will probably drop by 50% (being optimistic). Many members just don't have the $300+ for compliant WB/NB radios and will probably drop their comm duties. I would love to have HF (then I could work on my Comm Senior rating) but I can't afford the radio, and there are none available in the wing.

Also, if a hurricane gets to Colorado, we will have MUCH larger problems then communications.

As an aside, your screwdriver antenna sound interesting. Is there a source I can get more info on it?

Not having HF in most of the coporate vans is, to me, an invitation for DISASTER!! Here in NC we have a variety of terrain that cannot be successfully covered with VHF. In the mountains, oh......I suppose
VHF is fine if you have a repeater on the mountaintop you just descended, but from down in the valley, VHF is a useless as mammaries on a boar hog in many cases.  And what are you going to do if a hurricane--something WE definitely encounter--knocks out those repeaters we have become so dependent upon?  Not only it is ill-advised, it is dangerous in that VHF relies upon fixed plant and the power grid. Physical damage or terrorist actions against such installations can seriously hamper our commanders' abilities to coordinate and control their resources.  Indeed, one can deploy airborne, or portable repeaters but the damands placed on them and the extent of the tasking can quickly prove to be not enough.  There's where HF shines!  With a variety of frequencies from the bottom to the top of our assigned spectrum, HF can fill the bill that VHF often can't.  *Some* people regard HF as "ancient" or out of date, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  Here's another example:

  At a recent SAREX, we were using VHF for out tactical comms (as expected).  However, due to physical limitations and the number of operators available, it became apparent that the VHF traffic was quickly overtaxing the two operators in the radio room. Not that these experienced operators couldn't handle it, but there were only so many radios available resulting in airborne traffic and ground traffic being delayed.  Our ground team was out about 45 miles from mission base. I told them to go to "Channel XX" which is the highest
SSB frequency we use (experienced operators know what that one is). This separated OUR ground team from the other two teams that were on VHF, relieving the congestion and speeding up the info to and from the IC.

This frequency is one that has fallen into disuse and has often been subjected to "freebanders" (again you have to be an experienced radio op to know what that is ). Yet with the increased power allocated to it (used to be 5 watts only) and SSB mode, communications managers would be SURPRISED at what that frequency can achieve.

Another advantage to HF is it is semi-immune to ambulance chasers and news hounds because *most* scanners can't copy SSB or AM (except for aircraft).  Ever been on a SAR and had the media to show up wanting to question you about a search, OR, worse, show up where the ground team/van is? (We disguise critical info with code words, etc).  But, still, HF is, in the tactical sense, more secure when it comes to scanner enthusiasts listening in and showing up at a crash ("Duh, whut's this h'yar part that fell off?  YIPES!")

So, to me, it is rather shocking to find that, as a matter of policy, communications managers are not including HF in their total comm. plan! When the repeaters are OUT, the power grid has failed, commanders and IC's are blinded, HF mobiles are the ones that WILL save the day.  Deployed to any area and serving as their own power supply, they can rapidly gather information to IC's and other authorities and facilitate the rapid application of forces and supplies to meet the need.  Another example.

A couple of years ago a hurricane had devastated Eastern NC and had turned north and out to sea.  Our squadron's van was deployed in the area tasked with damage assessment, ELT shut-downs, and other jobs as needed.   North Carolina has VAST areas of flat country down east and it is hard to have enough repeaters to cover
it all.  CAP AND Ham repeaters were damaged and this van was operating on HF somewhere between 65 and 20 Meters (again most communicators will know where ) when out of the blue, a strange callsign appeared. It was a USAF Hurricane Hunter out of Mississippi
requesting relay to his base! Conditions at that time just wouldn't allow him to reach his home, but CAP was able to achieve this thru our HF links to the state EOC and, thus, to Mississippi.  We thought it was pretty nice to be able to do that, and USAF thought so, too--and SAID so.  What if we hadn't HAD that link?

So, to me, to leave out HF is inviting BIG trouble. We will only find out when its too late and the fix-plant resources don't work, and the cellphones die.  ARE we becoming TOO dependent on "techology"? I hope not!

Jerry

[Jerry]

Yes.  www.qsl.net/k4kwh!  Also. to be fair, check on other sites by typing in "screwdriver antenna" in Google or other search engine. Also, I recently prototyped a manual, all band HF mobile antenna that works the same way but without the motorized positioning.  It consists of a large coil and mast, and a whip of about 5-6' length.  It
has a tube at the bottom that surrounds the coil just like the regular screwdriver. Contacts surround the coil so that it is completely encircled.  One then, using an SWR meter or Antenna Analyzer, pre-tunes whatever frequencies he wants, marking these indices as needed. For example, each band CAP uses can be marked at the bottom of the mast.  The tube is then slid into place with a knurled knob and locked down! This lets you operate the various frequencies you have selected. It is cheaper, covers all bands--CAP or ham--and a good performer.  The disadvantage is, you have to get out of the vehicle and slide the control tube up/down as needed whereas the screwdriver can be dialed in while motoring down the pike.  They are heavy--that cannot be helped, but instructions are provided as to how to secure it to the vehicle so it is almost part of the car. Our van has a support bracket on the rain gutter that keeps the antenna in place very well, but it also can be removed in just a minute or two--either just the top whip or the entire assembly can be stowed away out of the way.

Also the screwdriver is about THE most popular HF mobile antenna in the ham radio world and *I* wouldn't be without mine--for ham OR CAP! I can be in Augusta, Georgia (like I was last night) and check into nets in Florida, NC, Tennessee, or Wisconsin for that matter.  Only if the conditions are absolutely horrible can I not get out (then I have a little "thing" in the truck that I kick into passing gear   )

Anyway take a look at the screwdriver that I build as well those of the competitors.  There is one or two that are "cheaper", but they use PVC coil forms, something I refuse to do for my own reasons. (OK, I'll tell ya--PVC is a TERRIBLE coil form for RF!!! )

I really would like to promote/renew an interest in HF!

Jerry

[BillB]

Umpteen years ago, Florida Wing had a Comm Officer named bill Criswell. He made an HF radio called a Crico that sold for $150 with a mobile power supply. It was a two channel AM (all that CAP used at the time) and was ideal for mobile or base stations. I think it was about 100 watts, but really don't remember.
The point was it sold in a price range CAP members could afford, and you would find mobiles throughout the SERegion using them when VHF was so limited by flat terrain. But now the price of a SSB compliant radio is out of sight. The average CAP member can't afford them. Not and maintain VHF capability for SAR and repeater operation. And trying to find a list of compliant only radios on National website means you have to fight through lists of all brands of radios and models to find anything.
I doubt there will be much interest in HF until National sets up a price discount program to bring the cost of radios down to a level that members can afford them.

[Jerry]

Well........they're still issuing Micoms.   I don't know what a "good" price is, but I am using an Icom 706 MKIIG.   Excellent HF radio. Used, the prices aren't all that bad. But, granted, it ain't like it used to be.

Jerry

[Jerry]

I've been puttering in my shop thinking about what was said about the cost of CAP. It has become much more expensive over the years. I agree that it is tough to buy radio equipment these days. So, I built an HF antenna that *could* help for those who would ONLY use HF in CAP. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. By pre-selecting, or pre-tuning, the antenna, one can set up all the HF frequencies CAP uses. Then the user marks the bottom mast with an indelible crayon or a stamper.  To go to.........say...........65 Meters,
you look for the correct mark on the mast, loosen the knurled nut on the slider and slide it into place. Tighten loosely and check to see that it is resonating at FULL power, adjusting as needed with permanently installed SWR bridge, analyzer, or even seeing that there are full light bars across the Micom display. Then tighten nut fully so it can't slip out of place.

I set this prototype up so that it works on ALL CAP and FEMA frequencies. The user can set it up for many, many frequencies including ham. The disadvantages are; you may not get it set just exactly everytime because when a mobile encounters different surroundings, it *may* tune differently. It is heavy and must be supported about halfway up the mast. A novice will have a hard time setting it up.  And, of course, the "manual" tuning which is not as fast as the screwdriver; it WILL tune--it just make a couple of extra minutes. Advantages are: Cost--quite a bit cheaper than the screwdriver. ONE antenna to accomplish ALL CAP HF frequencies, VERY effective, above average signal as opposed to the "hamstick" or Heliwhip seen on may CAP installations.

The screwdriver is better, but more expensive because it has the motor drive assembly.  It is really NEAT to be able to change frequencies from CAP to FEMA, for example, while zipping along the
freeway with FULL resonance and FULL performance and do it in seconds!

IF anyone is interested in this manual antenna, let me know here or via the website shown above.

Jerry

[whatevah]

well, since all my CAP summer activities are finally over (two weeks of NESA, and encampment)... I can reply. 

http://photos.delawarewing.org/mcc/IMG_0159?full=1

I noticed that you already asked about the antenna on our Mobile Command Center.  it's hooked up to a Harris radio, and uses an auto-tuner with the indicator next to the radio, but I don't remember what antenna it is.  :-D   It does cover pretty much all HF freqs, though.  Certainly all of the HF freqs that CAP uses, plus the one the freebanders like to use.

if you ever hear "Diamond Flight 76" check in to an HF net, that's somebody in our MCC.  Probably our Comm Engineer, or me if I'm really bored.  We usually have it monitoring the MER primary freq, though.

[Jerry]

Awesome!  That's really what I like to yak about.  What kind of equipment people are using. I think I mentioned it, but we are using
the Micom and the "screwdriver" antenna. It's not as quick as a "tuner", but it delivers better performance since it is resonant on whatever frequency is chosen. (so long as you position the antenna correctly)

At home, I am using an IC706 MKIIG and an LDG electronics Pro100 autotuner.  While I am NOT a fan of "tuners" ("tuners" or "matchboxes" don't "tune" any antenna) this thing does everything from 80 thru 10 Meters quickly and effortlessly with only a small (I'm sure) loss in signal. The HF antenna(s) is actually an 80M dipole and an Antron 99 vertical I can "tune" with the "tuner" down about 14 MHZ.  VHF is a 60' tower and 11 element beam for a total of 70' feet with which I can hit repeaters 100 miles away (elevation and mountains helps )

Now if things got REALLY bad, I can hook up my Ameritron "heater" and manual Heath roller inductor matchbox

IF you are ever on the air, check the NC Wing net and listen for CKH 426.  That'll be me.


Col Jerry

[JimA]

Seems like most of the talk is about mobile antennas...I'm going to change it a bit and talk about a base antenna.
I use a B&W Broadband Folded Dipole Mod. BWD-1.8-30 attached to a Kenwood TS-450S. It's in a Inverted V configuration...This antenna covers every frequency from 1.8 to 30 Mhz WITHOUT a tuner...I didnt believe it until I tried it.
My highest SWR was on 2182Khz and that was less then 2:1...
The total length of the antenna is 90ft.....I have the apex mounted at 45ft..
This antenna has never failed me....If I can hear it I can work it...
The last time I checked the price was a bit over $200.00

Jim
SERFL-301

[Jerry]

The B & W is a popular antenna with satifactory results. I don't know what it is, but I have done 2 installations with it and it hated  40 Meters.  That's the only trouble I had with it.  I have had pretty good results with my 75 Meter inverted V fed with ladderline
and LDG "tuner".

Jerry

[ctrossen]

That B&W antenna is precisely the one we're planning on installing at our meeting place (well, the stainless $400 version), so I'd like to hear all the pros and cons on it.

After reading what online reviews I could find, it seemed to me the "radio purists" didn't like it because it wasn't the most efficient antenna for their favorite bands. On the other hand, those that needed to be frequency agile without the use of multiple antennae or a tuner (i.e. those of us that use radios like the Micom) seemed to think it did the job.

Now we're going to mount it a little lower as an inverted V (20-30 ft.) to take advantage of NVIS. Primarily to work on our 65 and 40 meter freqs. But if we're going to have issues, I'd like to know now before we run the coax and hang the antenna.

[Jerry]

Of  course everybody is going to have a different opinion about antennas; goes with the territory!  But I, personally, did at least two installs with the B & W and they exhibited extremely high SWR in the 40 Meter range. As it sat, it couldn't be used--at least, I wouldn't for fear of damaging a CAP radio (or mine).  And I am not the only one that mentioned that the B & W went bonkers on that range; every other frequency was fine.

It does a present a challenge to a Comm. Officer to get the best performance and reasonable agility from an antenna. Personally, I actually did better with a  75 Meter "V" with an LDG autotuner. Now I do not like "tuners", but when compromise is warranted and feasible, I will use that, and I discovered the LDG
PRO 100 & 200 at less than $250 works very well. I have no doubt, performance-wise, it will beat the B & W, maybe not much.

I happen to believe that rapidly deployable mobile assets are  essential to "Semper Vigilans", and I refuse to use a "tuner" on a mobile. On the higher frequencies, you will not likely notice too much difference.  On 65 Meters, a mobile is at a distinct disadvantage since the very BEST mobile antenna is only 10 % efficient when referenced to a resonant dipole at the same frequency.  Plus, a base station and a dipole are *usually* have a height advantage.  So in order to have reasonable performance, I opt for either a center-loaded , high 'Q' coil, or a large "screwdriver-style" all-band antenna.  So in THAT respect, I guess I am a purist!   Our squadron van, as I mentioned, has a screwdriver HF antenna, and is one of the loudest mobiles in our Wing--even serving as Net Control Station for the Wing HF net with check-ins all across the 500 miles of the Wing (East to West). True, one must  actually 'set' the antenna to the right frequency semi-manually, but this only takes 10-30 seconds and it gives your signal a distinct advantage where it counts; that is, when the chips are down and that traffic MUST get thru. Low frequencies? A "tuner" STINKS!!   Why?  Because you've still got a mismatched antenna out there that is not "tuned" to the frequency--the "tuner" just presents a 50 ohm match that the radio can load into without getting its feelings hurt. You can LOAD a 50 ohm, 100 watt resistor and the radio will be happy.  But you won't have a signal!

Recently, I built a MOBILE antenna (Center-loaded "bugcatcher" style) and it was installed on the squadron  bldg in Raleigh, NC. The comm guys up there knew what they were doing WRT to installation and the radials/counterpoise, for it is a really loud signal.  This means that any mission in that area when HF MUST be used will be greatly enhanced because they have an efficient antenna for HF.  This one, however, is not multi-band--only 65 Meters. It was from that antenna I got the idea to make a "slider" antenna that combined high efficiency with multiband abilities.

So, *I* wouldn't go with the B & W personally BUT! It is a popular antenna for many applications, and whatever works for you is best.  Just be aware that it *might* not like 40 Meters. If you want to spend about the same money, then I would go with a
75 Meter dipole fed with ladderline down to a changer-over junction for coax with an LDG Pro-series tuner.  Then if your unit wants to spend a few more bucks, get an Antron 99 (Solarcon) vertical for those higher frequencies near the 10-4, mercy me band as the LDG has two antenna positions. 

(YMMV )

Good luck!


Jerry

[Jerry]

Without revealing the highest HF frequencies we use, how many of you ever use Channels 19 and 20 on your Micoms (I *think* this the ones I am after) You know, the one that was basically abandoned after the advent of VHF repeaters.  The one that with 5 watts AM you could spit across the parking lot about as far as it would work!
Yet, when it was authorized SSB and 150 watts of power, it is now actually a  neglected powerhouse of potential uses. IF you are aware of it!  Does anyone ever use it, or include it in their comm plans?

I have found several good uses for it.  Not too long ago, I was involved in a SAR operation where the communications people became overtaxed; too much traffic on  a given circuit, not enough radios to separate the traffic: air to ground, ground to ground.  I was on a ground team and, realizing from what was occurring on the radio, I suggested to the radio room that they switch to Channel 19 (again, I think I am right--it's HARD when you can't reveal the frequency!). I didn't tell them the frequency (GASP! that frequency won't work!), nor did I give a motive. I wanted to see what would happen.  From 45 miles out from the mission base, I was able to communicate with the mission base on this HF frequency, report status, findings, and receive instructions with no trouble! Therefore, I learned several things (which I already knew or suspected)

1.  That with 100 watts and SSB, that the frequency is an effective and useful frequency.

2.  That it can be used as a reliever frequency.

3.  It allows ground teams to report status and findings to mission base without their operations being monitored via scanner.

4.  Keeps news media at bay as most of their receiving equipment doesn't receive SSB.

5. Prevents family from monitoring our activities, thus preventing stress from deducing adverse SAR results (in spite of code words and other deception)

So the questions I am trying to draw out are, Have you ever thought of including this "highest HF frequency" in your comm operations?  How about the others besides 65 and 40 Meters? Do you ever use WWV as "beacons" to determine the best HF frequencies to use? Do you depend solely on VHF (IMHO, not good )


Jerry

[SarDragon]

That freq used to be great for local usage during airshows, flight line ops, and other short range stuff. It was easy to use because of the specific methods for conversion of consumer radios to the CAP freq. Today, I think it's been pretty much abandoned because of the lack of cheap radios that will operate on the freq. Also, there is frequently interference from rogue users in that band. I tried to get something going locally, and met with indifference at best.

[Jerry]

I think that frequency IS ignored and it is unfortunate. Attention to it should be drawn by communications officers as to its real capabilities. True, the old AM, 5 watt rigs we had back in the 60's and 70's wouldn't get out across the street, but they were excellent for training, flight line and other duties. Even air to ground worked well in the old days and we used to talk to some of the Air National Guard C-130s back in the day which we thot was pretty cool!

Now with the 100 watt Micoms, this frequency is every MORE viable for local operations out to 50 miles or so for the reasons I listed above.  If you are an Amateur Operator as well, it is not quite as bad as it would be if you were buying an HF radio *just* for CAP so I can better justify buying equipment for the job.

I find a lot of people tend to think HF= 65 Meters and that's it! They never stray from their "net" frequency as if all those other frequencies didn't exist!  Yet we have a variety of HF frequencies that are extreme useful if we train our people how and when to use them.  OTH, there are others that think radio was invented with the advent of VHF and repeaters and think of HF as out of date or quaint. Those people should've been around in the days when HF was ONE or two frequencies, VHF was an old Aerotron AM VHF, and the "new" frequency that started this discussion (Nana Nana, thot I was gonna say it ). There WAS no such thing as an ELT.  Lots has changed since then, but I continue to push for the innovative use of HF as the backbone of our communications.  Why?  Because it doesn't depend on fixed plant like VHF does (repeaters). It can "reach" out of those valleys where the repeater on the other side of the mountain can't.

I hope (that frequency ) can be discovered again by the communications planners in units for what it really is. .....inspite of the nearby interference from you-know-who!

Jerry

[Schmidty06]

Could you folks give me a frequency designator so I can have a better idea of what you're talking about?  The frequency designators can be found on the National Technology Center website under the restricted applications login.  Unless you can provide me with a listing of your tuning plan, Channel 19 or whatever is a local thing.