On 7/1/07 8:39 AM, in article , "John Smith I"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

That has nothing to do with helping someone understand AM. It appears you
are more interested in dumping your blog on this board, than providing
something to clarify the real answers for an electronic novice.

So, you will decide what he needs to know and what he doesn't?

If he becomes aware of the more esoteric and trivial it is dangerous.

Get real control freak!

JS


You really are thick headed if you can read Radium's posts and can't see how
he can't even deal with the real topic, much less the junk you toss in. The
more esoteric material should come after there is a grasp of the basics.

Don Bowey wrote:

You really are thick headed if you can read Radium's posts and can't see how
he can't even deal with the real topic, much less the junk you toss in. The
more esoteric material should come after there is a grasp of the basics.


What, you have already given up on him and consigned him to a special
education class? Damn, I missed him being that dense, of course I tend
to give everyone the benefit of the doubt--even you ...

JS

John Smith I hath wroth:

RHF wrote:
...
Because "Radium" Touched Them With A Thirst
For Knowledge And A Quest For Answers.
...

I don't know, according to any instructor I have ever had respect for:
"There are NO stupid questions, only stupid people who are afraid to ask
questions."

I beg to differ. My favorite mentor/instructor/employer had a
different philosophy regarding questions and answers. His line was
something like "If you don't understand the problem, no solution is
possible". His method was to concentrate on understanding the
problem, refining the corresponding questions, and only then
concentrating on finding the answer. I would spend much more time
thinking about "what problem am I trying to solve" instead of
blundering prematurely toward some potentially irrelevant solution.

My problem with the original question is that it fails to associate
itself with anything recognizable as a real problem to solve or a
theory to expound. In my never humble opinion, if there was a
question under all that rubbish, it was quite well hidden and severely
muddled. He also introduced a substantial number of "facts" that
varied from irrelevant to incoherent to just plain wrong. The problem
for us in not in finding the answer, but in decoding the question.

There may not be any stupid questions, but there seem to be a
substantial number of marginal people asking questions. I answer some
techy questions in alt.internet.wireless. What I see, all too often,
are people that seem to think that no effort on their part is
necessary to obtain an answer. They exert no effort to read the FAQ,
no effort to supply what problem they are trying to solve, and no
effort to supply what they have to work with. In this case, Mr Radium
has either exerted no effort to compose his question in a form that
can be answered, or if there was such an effort, it has failed
miserably. He couldn't even find a suitable collection of newsgroups
for his question.

There may not be any stupid questions, but there certainly are
questions not worth the time attempting to answer. If Mr Radium had
left the question at the subject line:
"AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on
an astronomically-low carrier frequency"
the question would have been easy to answer, as several people have
done. However, those that answered and I all did the same thing. We
extracted from the word salad question what we thought was something
resembling a coherent question, and ignored the rest of the rubbish.
In other words, we did the necessary simplification and problem
reduction, and discarded the bulk of the incoherent residue. There
may not be any stupid questions, but if you bury it under a sufficient
number of words, it may closely resemble a stupid question.

Depends ... I guess.
JS

Well, let's see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22guess%28tm%29%22&as_uauthors=Jeff+L iebermann
533 guesses, out of about 16,000 postings, which I guess(tm) isn't all
that bad.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 7/1/07 8:55 AM, in article , "John Smith I"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

You really are thick headed if you can read Radium's posts and can't see how
he can't even deal with the real topic, much less the junk you toss in. The
more esoteric material should come after there is a grasp of the basics.


What, you have already given up on him and consigned him to a special
education class? Damn, I missed him being that dense, of course I tend
to give everyone the benefit of the doubt--even you ...

JS

As a matter of fact, as you should be able to see, I am working here in
support of his learning process while you do nothing but rag on in support
of your blog.

Radium wrote:
"I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation, carriers,
and modulators."

It makes no difference which signal you call the modulating signal and
which you call the carrier. Modulation is simply mixing the two together
at a nonlinear point to create new frequencies along with the originals.

The same modulation products are produced by 20 Hz on a 20 KHz carrier
or 20 KHz on a 20 Hz carrier.

The nonlinear point may be a single diode, a diode bridge, or a
high-level plate modulator. The signals out can be the same except for
amplitudes.

I think Ian Jackson has also given a correct answer that is more
complete though less simple.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Don Bowey wrote:

As a matter of fact, as you should be able to see, I am working here in
support of his learning process while you do nothing but rag on in support
of your blog.



idiot

JS

On 7/1/07 11:11 AM, in article , "John Smith I"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

As a matter of fact, as you should be able to see, I am working here in
support of his learning process while you do nothing but rag on in support
of your blog.



idiot

JS

OK, you win.

Don Bowey wrote:
[pure crap!]

"In the mid-1870s, a form of amplitude modulation—initially called
"undulatory currents"—was the first method to successfully produce
quality audio over telephone lines. Beginning with Reginald Fessenden's
audio demonstrations in the early 1900s, it was also the original method
used for audio radio transmissions, and remains in use by some forms of
radio communication—"AM" is often used to refer to the mediumwave
broadcast band (see AM radio)."

Taken from this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation

And, please read the WHOLE PAGE before making a larger idiot of yourself ...

JS

On 7/1/07 11:19 AM, in article , "John Smith I"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
[pure crap!]

"In the mid-1870s, a form of amplitude modulation‹initially called
"undulatory currents"‹was the first method to successfully produce
quality audio over telephone lines. Beginning with Reginald Fessenden's
audio demonstrations in the early 1900s, it was also the original method
used for audio radio transmissions, and remains in use by some forms of
radio communication‹"AM" is often used to refer to the mediumwave
broadcast band (see AM radio)."

Taken from this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation

And, please read the WHOLE PAGE before making a larger idiot of yourself ...

JS

I didn't read the link, as it has nothing to do with this string.

You posted to Radium's question about Amplitude Modulation, saying that on a
telephone line, the DC voltage is the Carrier and the microphone current (or
voltage if you prefer) is the modulation. Now THAT is un-pure crap and it
is what I responded to and which you deleted in this post hoping to look
better, which you don't.

I already conceded to your ignorance, so you really didn't need to post
more, but thanks for the opportunity to help.

Don Bowey wrote:

[more crap!]

Oh, that explains it, your understanding of amplitude modulation is:

AM = Black Magic.

ROFLOL!

JS