N2EY:

Most of that is incorrect.

First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and
have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being
"transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on.

Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for
transmission of understandable communication (however, this is
required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc)

Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio
bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, except with the
possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and
transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO
changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in
a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily
offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just
like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error
checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances
and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to
make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this,
just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software.

Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE
forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and
suitable to ones needs, an example:
Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3
--in video--
Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5

However, any of this requires a sound and current education and
knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously
lacking here.

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5
KHz?

Two steps:

1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital
formats for transmission.

2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols

Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates
through
very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio.
Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're
used to.

For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal
noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an
advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on
a
telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent
bandwidth.


I thought that we were going to be able to send live video
and digital images on HF?

You can do that now - just need enough S/N.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use
DRM, and we're
going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of
difference between people talking theory and actual
application.

Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination.

Does complex and newer equal better?

Sometimes. Not always.

Is analog simpler than digital?

Sometimes!

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet
make a person a digital expert?

Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't
mean someone knows much about radio.

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective.

Are you surprised?

Appears to be what there is to offer.

Now consider how effective such a person would
be trying to sell amateur radio - with or
without a code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY