/tech/ - Technology

Technology & Computing


New Reply
Name
X
Sage
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Password
[New Reply]


3c24a910338f9638ac155d6692149b0d-imagejpeg.jpg (u)
[Hide] (34KB, 474x237)
ITT we discuss how technology will assist in our survival during various SHTF scenarios
Replies: >>3666
What's more likely to happen during a true SHTF scenario: a complete internet outage or losing all ability to communicate over HAM radio?
Replies: >>3604 >>3617 >>3679
>>3598
Depends on the SHTF situation. But for HAM radios to fuck up you'd probably need a huge electronic fuckery or properly enforced mass censorship, and either case would probably take the internet down with it.
>>3598
In a true SHTF scenario, best bet is going innawoods. Only radio communication matters at that point. Getting electricity to power freezers, light and radio is a bigger problem. In a bug-out bag situation, I only know about a couple options:
>solar
>river hydro
>hand cranks
All of them make little power. Gas generators are heavy and make too much noise. Is it possible to generate enough electricity for a backpack camper?
Replies: >>3618 >>3629
>>3617
watch?v=AyTqo4mCUUY
Requires some work, but could be doable with tools.
Replies: >>3651
Probably CB radio communication would be more helpful in a SHTF situation than HAM radio for various reasons.
Replies: >>3679
>>3617
>needing freezers
lolwut

Seriously, if you're innawoods, what are you freezing anyway? Your groceries from the store? If you're truly in a SHTF scenario, you're likely in hunter/gatherer mode and won't have the luxury of needing to freeze surplus food before spoilage. In any case, salt would be a better thing to have and it doesn't require electricity.
Replies: >>3631 >>3632
>>3629
>salt is better
Right. Freezing game meat sounds retarded now that I remember salt.
>>3629
Depending on where you're at a freezer might be more practical than finding a source of salt.
Replies: >>3634 >>3635
>>3632
The key is to find a source of salt before you need it, dummy. You know, like a grocery store.
>>3632
Or if you prefer, you can just buy and store an extra freezer you don't really need, then find a way to transport it when the zombies attack, there's no electricity and all the roads are blocked, jammed or closed.
Replies: >>3640
>>3635
A small freezer and some way to generate electricity is smaller and lighter than the equivalent amount of salt you'd need. If you don't live near a beach or somewhere you can just make salt that's way easier.
output.webm (u)
[Hide] (29MB, 1020x720, 17:07)
>>3618
Need to up my /out/ game. Archived for non-((( (((youtube))) ))) access here.
>>3597 (OP) 
The technology of hording common ammo and couple of common guns, medical supplies and lighters/batteries/alcohol.
Replies: >>3675
>>3666
>muh guns
No one is gonna steal your shit because you won't have anything extra to steal. You'll be spending every waking moment trying to acquire food, water and adequate shelter, same as everyone else.
>all that other shit
only lighters have any real value in that list
>>3598
For a true SHTF scenario, you want a low-powered QRP CW (Morse code) rig. CW is so simple that it is hard to jam, and it doesn't require a lot of power. Also, read the ARRL Handbook and the ARRL antenna book, if you are interested.

>>3621
Nope. The only advantage CB has is that it doesn't require a license.
Replies: >>3680 >>3682
>>3679
>Nope. The only advantage CB has is that it doesn't require a license.
Nope. There's more people with CB gear than HAM for various reasons. Wider circle of potential support right there.
>>3679
>CW
lol, no one uses it besides hobbyist nerds like yourself. even the u.s. military abandoned it. you'll be sending your messages to no one.
Replies: >>3702 >>3726
>>3682
>lol, no one uses CW besides hobbyist nerds like yourself. 
But it's simple. You can't deny that.
Replies: >>3704
>>3702
I'm not against CW. It served its purpose, but in a true SHTF scenario, it would be useless and SHTF scenarios is what this thread's about.
Replies: >>3726
cw is still used by many people throughout the world and it's your best bet for both local and long range messaging with shtf and you have very little power to draw upon for transmissions
>>3682
>>3704
It's popular enough that you'd see people sharing regional and foreign news in any bad situation across distances that CB and your typical UHF/VHF setups can't come close to.  5 watts can get you across an ocean in good conditions with CW and the right antenna.  If you're in a populated area, being able to transmit on alternate bands or cut through busy bands would be a big plus when everyone who bought a baofeng for everyone in their extended family is making VHF and UHF unusable.  Downsides are it takes more knowledge to DIY or knowledge and money to buy a rig and antennas than buying a cheap handheld.
Replies: >>3727
>>3726
What would be the cheapest not DIY set up to send/receive CW within a 500 mile radius under typical atmospheric conditions using a max of 5W of power? I don't think you'd need more than that in a true SHTF scenario where local and outside assistance would be needed. Then the other question is: even if you have all that equipment and knowledge, who is going to be listening, much less willing and able to respond to distress calls? Remember that the rescue ship only arrived after the Titanic had sunk.
Replies: >>3734
The_Strelok's_Guide_to_Ham_Radio_-_BossMan.pdf (u)
(1.6MB)
>>3727
Fair warning. A complete answer to your first question is very long. PDF is relevant but really only a starting point. The big reason it's mostly hobbyists communicating with CW is that it's more involved but you see some interest in these kinds of discussions because of capabilities.  Listening, on the other hand, requires very little and is not a bad place to start with CW.  

Cheapest and most likely to find people to talk to would probably be a pre-built half-wave 40 meter (half waves so figure just a little longer than 20 meters) dipole antenna, however much RG58 you need to go from that antenna to your transceiver (higher is better), a one or two switch key for input, and a hobbyist QRP rig.  There are more compact antennas but those are available, have good performance, and are not expensive. Hams are mostly old gear whores so pre-built stuff is typically very expensive.  You'll see things like 300$+ transceivers and 100$+ iambic keys being the norm for low power operations, the latter of which is just two switches in a fancy box.  There are a lot of low power hobbyist rigs for cheaper and most will assemble them for you if you're not in to electronics.

Hobbyists around the world do listen and communicate on the bands useful for long range CW.  Amateur radio organizations are centered around emergency communication so it's almost certain someone would be listening in SHTF.  How useful that is to you probably depends on what the situation is.
Replies: >>3775
>>3734
What's a simple program to convert binary files to an image file that could be transmitted over dsstv or drm? Easypal is windows only and no longer maintained. I don't want to have to buy loads of expensive HAM equipment. I want to be able to use a program to encode it in the proper format, transfer the file any way I choose and then decode it using a software receiver.
Hopefully, you understand what I'm asking for.
Replies: >>3817
So, in other words, imagine you want to send a binary file over radio without getting an electrical engineering degree, a HAM license or expensive HAM equipment. How would you do it?
And I already know every digital file is 'binary' so maybe it's best to say, "any file with any kind of data in any format".
Replies: >>3782 >>3787
>>3777
https://www.gnuradio.org/
Replies: >>3787
>>3777
Don't listen to this larping faggot >>3782, he knows nothing. 
Just uuencode your file to text, brah, then use minimodem to convert back and forth between text to wav

Done.
>3787
>without a HAM license
>expensive HAM equipment
Even minimodem can't send magic through the air. With sdr(gnuradio), he can get the cheapest possible radio hardware with gnuradio doing all the hardware work. And it doesn't even need to be HAM, he can do CB, CW, and even wifi with a single piece of hardware.
I hope you have a glowing big tittdy and a real cunt. You are probably demoted to be my personal glowniggeress, get some lube with you because it is not gonna be wet enough.
Just don't forget to encrypt the file *before* you uuencode it.
There are other tricks I could share but that's all for now because I don't want to get ((( (((someone))) ))) ITT more upset than they already are   ;^)
>>3775
Never played with steganography before but I think that's what you want.  Find a program for your system.  Arrange an encryption scheme with the intended recipient.  Encrypt, embed your encrypted file into an image, then send  the image.  Doesn't matter what the transportation medium is.  Bonus points for writing your own steganography tool.
Replies: >>3818
>>3817
I still don't think that's gonna work because sstv just sends a very good approximation of an image, not a bit by bit copy.
Replies: >>3825
I forgot to add, I'm talking about radio transmission only here, not using the internet at all.
>>3818
Digital modes of transmission that use error correction will get the job done for radio, internet, whatever.  I was thinking transmission of image files using something normally used to transmit text.  If you transmitted a text "header" before, I don't see sending images over text as violating the no messages in codes or ciphers rule but hams who don't understand might.
Replies: >>3835
>>3825
Easypal is the only software I know of that will do that, but it's windows only and no longer maintained.
[New Reply]
35 replies | 3 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Instructions
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 0.1.7