In article , David Stinson
writes:

have one hour-long segment on CD centered on 3932 KC.
It contains seven separate, distinct and interesting SSB QSOs
that I can listen to at my leisure, plus many other stations.

I figure that you could get at most a 40KC wide band segment on a CD for one
hour. Is that right? As a demo of the concept, that isn't bad at all.

And a lot of us military radio people think having a
nation-wide net of WWII BC-611 handie-talkies,
all able to talk to each other in real time, would be an absolute gas.

True. But I haven't yet figured out how the *transmit* side of this would
work.
If you can put up a transmitting antenna, then you could transmit normally thru
it, and your antenna changeover relay would select the Virtual antenna for
receive.

But the walkie-talkies wouldn't be that flexible, and you've noted the physical
and legal problems with putting up any antenna, let alone transmitting.

Would your Virtual terminal include a receiver that samples the output of your
(real) transmitter, (fed into a dummy load?), and digitize that and add it into
the Spectrum that everyone else receives?

Other than dynamic range and bandwidth practical limits, I think your idea has
merit. At least it doesn't belong in the April issue. 73, Mike K. AA1UK



Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

In article , David Stinson
writes:

have one hour-long segment on CD centered on 3932 KC.
It contains seven separate, distinct and interesting SSB QSOs
that I can listen to at my leisure, plus many other stations.

I figure that you could get at most a 40KC wide band segment on a CD for one
hour. Is that right? As a demo of the concept, that isn't bad at all.

And a lot of us military radio people think having a
nation-wide net of WWII BC-611 handie-talkies,
all able to talk to each other in real time, would be an absolute gas.

True. But I haven't yet figured out how the *transmit* side of this would
work.
If you can put up a transmitting antenna, then you could transmit normally thru
it, and your antenna changeover relay would select the Virtual antenna for
receive.

But the walkie-talkies wouldn't be that flexible, and you've noted the physical
and legal problems with putting up any antenna, let alone transmitting.

Would your Virtual terminal include a receiver that samples the output of your
(real) transmitter, (fed into a dummy load?), and digitize that and add it into
the Spectrum that everyone else receives?

Other than dynamic range and bandwidth practical limits, I think your idea has
merit. At least it doesn't belong in the April issue. 73, Mike K. AA1UK



Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

Oh, my....*sigh*

No, I don't work for the power companies,
and no, I don't lobby for BPL.

charlesblabham wrote:

..it encourages us all to be discouraged....
Now *that* is an interesting concept..


I am sorry to hear that this invasion of non-ham stuff
into the hobby does not bother you.
I thought innovating, finding new ways around problems, etc.
*was* "ham stuff." We used to do that alot.

So far, the idea of using non-ham links in order to "improve" the
performance of amateur radio has been 100% consistent. In every case where
it has been applied, it has managed to set back
and denigrate the hobby, to some extent or another.

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.
It was just one aspect of many; a way to dodge one giant
hairball the FCC is about to cough up on us.
But when you say "BPL," a few people go into some sort of "brain lock."
They can't even hear anything else.
Oh well... back to building the 611 QSO transverters...
73 Dave S.

Oh, my....*sigh*

No, I don't work for the power companies,
and no, I don't lobby for BPL.

charlesblabham wrote:

..it encourages us all to be discouraged....
Now *that* is an interesting concept..


I am sorry to hear that this invasion of non-ham stuff
into the hobby does not bother you.
I thought innovating, finding new ways around problems, etc.
*was* "ham stuff." We used to do that alot.

So far, the idea of using non-ham links in order to "improve" the
performance of amateur radio has been 100% consistent. In every case where
it has been applied, it has managed to set back
and denigrate the hobby, to some extent or another.

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.
It was just one aspect of many; a way to dodge one giant
hairball the FCC is about to cough up on us.
But when you say "BPL," a few people go into some sort of "brain lock."
They can't even hear anything else.
Oh well... back to building the 611 QSO transverters...
73 Dave S.

David Stinson wrote:

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

Who said that?

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

Who said that?

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

Who said that?

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Who said that?

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

So if people are not "for" whatever comes along is full of beans?

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.

And when BPL appeared, those naughty naysayers thought it was a bad
thing too.

So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

- Mike KB3EIA -

David Stinson wrote:

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

Who said that?

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

Who said that?

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

Who said that?

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Who said that?

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

So if people are not "for" whatever comes along is full of beans?

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.

And when BPL appeared, those naughty naysayers thought it was a bad
thing too.

So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , --exray-- writes:

I view BPL as a means of restricting my access to shortwave freqs in
much the same way the Chinese jam freqs from Nepal. But, of course, the
present administration would never do anything to restrict our access to
global views which may call their agenda into question.

I don't know if you are joking or if something that bizarre has really
crossed your mind. I love a good sense of humour.

I don't know if this desirable (to them) byproduct of BPL has crossed the minds
of the Bushies, but it would certainly help shield us from furrin' influences.

BTW, AFAIK unlike the Communist countries, the US has never jammed foreign
broadcasts such as Radio Moscow or Havana, Cuba. However, there's a first time
for everything, especially if it isn't *called* jamming. --Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

In article , --exray-- writes:

I view BPL as a means of restricting my access to shortwave freqs in
much the same way the Chinese jam freqs from Nepal. But, of course, the
present administration would never do anything to restrict our access to
global views which may call their agenda into question.

I don't know if you are joking or if something that bizarre has really
crossed your mind. I love a good sense of humour.

I don't know if this desirable (to them) byproduct of BPL has crossed the minds
of the Bushies, but it would certainly help shield us from furrin' influences.

BTW, AFAIK unlike the Communist countries, the US has never jammed foreign
broadcasts such as Radio Moscow or Havana, Cuba. However, there's a first time
for everything, especially if it isn't *called* jamming. --Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

Mike Coslo wrote:


So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

See? Whaddya tell'ya... brain lock.

Mike Coslo wrote:


So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

See? Whaddya tell'ya... brain lock.