Sidebands
 

On 24/12/2010 15:47, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:56:06 +0000, wrote:

The first AM Broadcast station (as opposed to amateur or military )
was in about 1919.


You might want to look into the work of Reginald Fessenden. He made
the first entertainment type audio transmissions to a general audience
in 1906.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden


As did Marconi and several others, but they certainly could not be
described as a broadcast station, more like experimental demonstrations.

Jeff

Sidebands
 

On 24/12/2010 15:49, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:12:38 -0000, wrote:

Szczepan wrote:

If in 1915 were no broadcast stations to speak tell us what was with the
first station to speak and when it start transmitting.
S*

There were no broadcasting stations of any kind in 1915.

The first station that could even remotely be called a broadcasting station
was in 1916 and it broadcasted weather reports in morse code.

The first experimental AM broadcast stations started in 1919 and regular AM
broadcasting started in 1920 when all the spark gap morse transmitters
were shut down.


Make that 1906 for the first experimental AM broadcast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden


Again you must differentiate between sporadic demonstrations and the
setting up of a station with scheduled programming, which is what the
discussion is about.

Jeff

Sidebands
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:12:38 -0000, wrote:

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

If in 1915 were no broadcast stations to speak tell us what was with the
first station to speak and when it start transmitting.
S*

There were no broadcasting stations of any kind in 1915.

The first station that could even remotely be called a broadcasting station
was in 1916 and it broadcasted weather reports in morse code.

The first experimental AM broadcast stations started in 1919 and regular AM
broadcasting started in 1920 when all the spark gap morse transmitters
were shut down.


Make that 1906 for the first experimental AM broadcast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden

The operative words are "scheduled" and "public" in this context.

There were lots of one off things done before 1919.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

On Dec 24, 9:21*pm, wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:12:38 -0000, wrote:

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

If in 1915 were no broadcast stations to speak tell us what was with the
first station to speak and when it start transmitting.
S*

There were no broadcasting stations of any kind in 1915.

The first station that could even remotely be called a broadcasting station
was in 1916 and it broadcasted weather reports in morse code.

The first experimental AM broadcast stations started in 1919 and regular AM
broadcasting started in 1920 when all the spark gap morse transmitters
were shut down.

Make that 1906 for the first experimental AM broadcast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessenden

The operative words are "scheduled" and "public" in this context.

There were lots of one off things done before 1919.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but did distance affect the sidebands???? that is the question,
please keep mr. B on topic!

Sidebands
 

K1TTT wrote:

but did distance affect the sidebands???? that is the question,
please keep mr. B on topic!

This babbling moron has been posting his nonsense for years on the physics
and physics.electromagnetic groups.

When I first read his posts years ago I thought his gibberish was because
English wasn't his native language but soon came to realize that the issue
isn't language, the issue is brain chemistry.

Recently he has moved to the amateur groups, I guess in hopes that the
people here won't be as "harsh" as they are in the science groups.

You can give him facts and links all day long, but since he doesn't seem
to have more than two synapses that fire properly, he will never understand
any response and just continue to babble on.

So there are a few choices to answering his posts:

Don't

Remind him he is a drooling mental case

Respond with some facts that may be of interest to others when he accidently
hits on something, such as the history of broadcasting, then remind him he
is a drooling mental case



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sidebands
 

wrote ...
K1TTT wrote:

but did distance affect the sidebands???? that is the question,
please keep mr. B on topic!

This babbling moron has been posting his nonsense for years on the physics
and physics.electromagnetic groups.

When I first read his posts years ago I thought his gibberish was because
English wasn't his native language but soon came to realize that the issue
isn't language, the issue is brain chemistry.

Recently he has moved to the amateur groups, I guess in hopes that the
people here won't be as "harsh" as they are in the science groups.

You can give him facts and links all day long, but since he doesn't seem
to have more than two synapses that fire properly, he will never
understand
any response and just continue to babble on.

So there are a few choices to answering his posts:

Don't

Remind him he is a drooling mental case

Respond with some facts that may be of interest to others when he
accidently
hits on something, such as the history of broadcasting, then remind him he
is a drooling mental case.

Do not be angry that you do not know if " did distance affect the
sidebands???? ". It is nothing wrong.
The effect is obvious in light of physics laws. Such obvious that fathers of
the radio did not write about this.
Young people can measure it if it is interesting for them.
S*

Sidebands
 

On Dec 25, 10:06*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
...



K1TTT wrote:

but did distance affect the sidebands???? *that is the question,
please keep mr. B on topic!

This babbling moron has been posting his nonsense for years on the physics
and physics.electromagnetic groups.

When I first read his posts years ago I thought his gibberish was because
English wasn't his native language but soon came to realize that the issue
isn't language, the issue is brain chemistry.

Recently he has moved to the amateur groups, I guess in hopes that the
people here won't be as "harsh" as they are in the science groups.

You can give him facts and links all day long, but since he doesn't seem
to have more than two synapses that fire properly, he will never
understand
any response and just continue to babble on.

So there are a few choices to answering his posts:

Don't

Remind him he is a drooling mental case

Respond with some facts that may be of interest to others when he
accidently
hits on something, such as the history of broadcasting, then remind him he
is a drooling mental case.

Do not be angry that you do not know if " did distance affect the
sidebands???? ". It is nothing wrong.
The effect is obvious in light of physics laws. Such obvious that fathers of
the radio did not write about this.
Young people can measure it if it is interesting for them.
S*

distance itself does not affect sidebands.

frequency dependent dispersion in the ionosphere can affect sidebands
and the mark/space tones of rtty differently over short periods
causing differential fading and distortion.

Sidebands
 

K1TTT wrote:

distance itself does not affect sidebands.

frequency dependent dispersion in the ionosphere can affect sidebands
and the mark/space tones of rtty differently over short periods
causing differential fading and distortion.

One could also consider selective fading.

Sidebands
 

On Dec 25, 2:57*pm, joe wrote:
K1TTT wrote:

distance itself does not affect sidebands.

frequency dependent dispersion in the ionosphere can affect sidebands
and the mark/space tones of rtty differently over short periods
causing differential fading and distortion.

One could also consider selective fading.

that's just another name for it... i threw in the big words because
i'm sure that mr.b will look them up out of context and find all sorts
of hilarious ways to recombine them.

Sidebands
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Do not be angry that you do not know if " did distance affect the
sidebands???? ". It is nothing wrong.

It is gibberish; one has nothing to do with the other.

The effect is obvious in light of physics laws. Such obvious that fathers of
the radio did not write about this.
Young people can measure it if it is interesting for them.
S*

More meaningless gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.