From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:03

K=D8=88B wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

So here we are.

Yup, and no one has persuaded me it can't be done. I've only been persu=
aded
that we haven't figured out how yet. (Sorta reminds you, doesn't it, of=
how
those old-tymey hams must have felt when they were told to take their pa=
rty to
"200 meters and below".) You, Jim, and Dee bemoaning how hard it will b=
e, and
John raising the tantalizing notion that we may only be a few "eureka!!!=
"s away
from something workable.

He also give a lot of solid technical ways in which this can be done, =
eh?

Coslonaut, this newsgroup is NOT an educational institution.
Binary files containing schematics, pictures, other diagrams
are not allowed here...along with PPT files and other slide
stuff necessary to TEACH the iggorants.

Outside my area of competence, but I'll watch the
dialog with interest.

Hey, Hans, ignorance is not a crime!

The Coslonaut has intimated so, demanding an Instant Education
into Information Theory in as few words as possible.

Note that Jim brought up an
*actual* method of trying to do a lot of BW using 256 or more phase
angles that are decoded by the receiving station.

Tsk, he should write a Paper on that and submit it somewhere.

[harf!]

That is not likely to
work at HF, but a simplified version of this is used for some satellite
comms.

So, what do you "think" makes a 56,000 bit per second modem
work over 3 KHz bandwidth telephone lines?

"Some satellite comms?" Which "some?" Be specific. The
geosynchronous orbit positions for communications satellites
have all been filled three years ago.

they (see my link in my post to Jim) note that QPSK is more
reliable - or at least suffers less from link degradation - same thing,
than 8PSK. But there is some theory there that can be discussed.

There are hundreds and hundreds of other sources for THEORY
available for free over the Internet, ranging from simple
to math-heavy complex. You choose as you wish for YOUR
personal education.

And as for "bemoaning", I have been asking for something based in
solid theory since early in this thread. Most of what I have gotten in
return is that I am an olde tyme ham (untrue) stuck on CW with my Bug
(paraphrased, but laughably untrue), and topic shifted to DRM voice
(technically working, but beside the point). That ain't substance.

Do you think every single posting in here is a "judgement on
your technical competence?!? How long have you had this
paranoic compulsion? Seek help.

DRM voice AND music is NOT "beside the point." It works.
On HF. Can be on LF through VHF. It has been working for
five years, successfully. Its future will be determined by
the shortwave broadcasting market (not a lucratie one since
the beginning of radio) listeners.

DRM uses both information compression and digital signal
processing to shape its spectral content into a 12 KHz
maximum bandwidth. The same principles can squeeze voice
only into a 3 KHz bandwidth.

The information compression and digital signal processing
is NOT an easy-to-digest subject. It requires many hours of
study to begin to get started knowing what it is about. You
want simplistic solutions in single messages, then become
emotionally upset when you don't get them. Tsk.

What you have for viability, for proof, is that there are
MANY different methods to send good communications through
limited bandwidths. Those have been named. The next step is
up to you, whether you are sincere in a desire to learn or
not. Nobody is going to waste their personal time and energy
giving you a FREE education. You have NOT earned that yet.

bit bit