Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?
We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... ) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Then again, the regs and band plans have us bound up pretty tightly.
Not a whole lot of room left to experiement with modulation schemes. Antennas are still wide open, but it seems a lot like aerodynamics, all the good work was done in wwII, and not much progress since, except for tweaks. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark"
wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will let that pass for further discussion. There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow the market. The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a crypto-fascist administration. Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new technology? If not, then your argument contains its own self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls "projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular. Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there, your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years). As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually intellectual property. Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and calling them out for being against technology. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark" wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will let that pass for further discussion. There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Why aren't we using them then? Is the nasty need for channelizing going to rear up? Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow the market. The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a crypto-fascist administration. Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new technology? If not, then your argument contains its own self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls "projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem. If there is a digital mode that uses less bandwidth, sounds at least acceptable to enough people, and allows me to tune my radio in a normal fashion, I'll hop right on it. And of course, we have to remember that there is an inertia based on the need to have people to talk to. If I have the nifty new digital mode of communications, how much fun is it going to be if I only have three other people to QSO with? These things take time, and I may assume that Mark has a digital rig? Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular. I guess I hadn't looked at it from that perspective, but I agree, there must be some confusion as to what exactly digital is. Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there, your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years). As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually intellectual property. Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and calling them out for being against technology. I have a nice mid-80's IC745 that is indeed digital in all the places where it serves the purpose! - Mike KB3EIA - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:30:45 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Why aren't we using them then? Is the nasty need for channelizing going to rear up? Hi Mike, Heavens no. There are several means to generate a clean RF source digitally. These devices (a chip with a rock) can change phase, or frequency in the time it takes to change a register (microseconds). These are largely based on look-up tables feeding D/A converters. Memory is cheap you may well know, I habitually carry a 128MB flash drive in my pocket as my briefcase, and a 64MB voice recorder as my stenographer, and my 32MB Palm Pilot as secretary. Grand total cost for my "digital" office is under $300. Another method of high purity RF source generation is direct feed of a pulse train into amps with only the slightest of filtering. These pulse trains are weighted to look like a binary sine wave (a few bits on early, a lot on in the middle, and a few on in the late stage). This work has been long available in the pages of Steve Ciarcia's magazine "Circuit Cellar." http://www.circellar.com/ I believe it was written up by Don Lancaster (a name that should be resourced for ideas that approach problems obliquely). The length of the pulse train, and the weighting of the bit positions leads to exceptionally pure RF (spurs at least 60dB down). The only problem here in this last method is moving that pulse train fast enough for HF (128 bit trains to drive at HF will require you to clock them through at UHF rates). The only problem with the look-up/ADC method is that with my last look at these products, they were roughly limited to 16MHz (with 0.1Hz resolution) - so perhaps some mixing is called for at the higher bands. If there is a digital mode that uses less bandwidth, sounds at least acceptable to enough people, and allows me to tune my radio in a normal fashion, I'll hop right on it. You need to look at Digital AM (specifically Harris transmitters). And of course, we have to remember that there is an inertia based on the need to have people to talk to. If I have the nifty new digital mode of communications, how much fun is it going to be if I only have three other people to QSO with? This is why Spread Spectrum died in Ham radio. The FCC mandated we transmit on a specific "gold code" and painted the research into an isolated technical corner. I guess I hadn't looked at it from that perspective, but I agree, there must be some confusion as to what exactly digital is. It is a Marketing term like fractal antenna - wholly spun from the imagination to create the impression of advanced technology when it has been around since the early 1800s (anyone ever here of Ada?). I have a nice mid-80's IC745 that is indeed digital in all the places where it serves the purpose! Exactimundo! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark" wrote in message
... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark" wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. SNIP 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Oh dear, my generalisations have yet again confused those of electronics academia and has caused interpretation problems with a gargantuan proportion. Maybe my sentence " You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is? " should be changed to " You know what the trouble is with all those on this list is: " ( followed by a list of every amateur in the world , but filtering out those who don't reply to an extensive survey to find out if they would like to be included in the generalisation "we". ) He casts... he waits... ( not long ) , and he reels them in... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
Oh dear, my generalisations have yet again confused those of electronics academia and has caused interpretation problems with a gargantuan proportion. Maybe my sentence " You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is? " should be changed to " You know what the trouble is with all those on this list is: " ( followed by a list of every amateur in the world , but filtering out those who don't reply to an extensive survey to find out if they would like to be included in the generalisation "we". ) He casts... he waits... ( not long ) , and he reels them in... What digital rig do you use, Mark? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
What digital rig do you use, Mark? - Mike KB3EIA - Errr... who me... use digital... you must be joking.... :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... ) There are some serious limitations to digital voice comms that make it not work so well for our purposes. Bandwidth issues, believe it or not. Another problem I note is that I was reading a review of a unit that will interface between the microphone and xciever. I was reading along with interest - it sounded pretty good - then at the end of the article they note that you have to receive the whole transmission, or you receive nothing. No tuning across the bands looking for a signal. Perhaps the ARS should be channelized like CB? Comparisons with cell phones are amusing because the quality of those little POC's is by and large unacceptable IMO. "Can you hear me now?" 8^) |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HAMS in or near EVERGREEN, COLORADO | Antenna |