Paul Keinanen ) writes:

... the BPL might be blocked during
your transmissions ...

Paul OH3LWR


Isn't this the answer to BPL? Get on the air, and prevent them from using
the spectrum that they claim they won't affect!

Martin VE3OAT

A New Concept: Virtual Spectrum
 

Paul Keinanen ) writes:

... the BPL might be blocked during
your transmissions ...

Paul OH3LWR


Isn't this the answer to BPL? Get on the air, and prevent them from using
the spectrum that they claim they won't affect!

Martin VE3OAT

Why such a fuss? One is flying, with all the genuine unpredictable atmospheric
challenges, the other is a flight simulator. Both have their place.

Why such a fuss? One is flying, with all the genuine unpredictable atmospheric
challenges, the other is a flight simulator. Both have their place.

In article TmWib.25929$Rd4.16160@fed1read07, "K7JEB"
writes:

In effect, the Internet would become
an extremely wideband virtual ionosphere for optical waves.
And, of course, at optical wavelengths, there are huge
frequecy bandwidths available, so everybody could have
their own TV channel, or ham band, or whatever. The trick
would be that you had to provide your own optical terminal
equipment to interface to the fiber.

A wonderful concept. But unforch, it would take the Spammers about 10 days to
completely fill it up. --Mike K.

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

In article TmWib.25929$Rd4.16160@fed1read07, "K7JEB"
writes:

In effect, the Internet would become
an extremely wideband virtual ionosphere for optical waves.
And, of course, at optical wavelengths, there are huge
frequecy bandwidths available, so everybody could have
their own TV channel, or ham band, or whatever. The trick
would be that you had to provide your own optical terminal
equipment to interface to the fiber.

A wonderful concept. But unforch, it would take the Spammers about 10 days to
completely fill it up. --Mike K.

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

In article , "Gene Storey"
writes:

I was excited about the microsats. Then they built this monster satellite
and spent millions on it. I don't know anyone in a 100 miles who uses it.

About 6-10 years ago I heard rumors of a Ham satellite that would use the HF
bands (not VHF/UHF) and pack enough power that we could pick it up on our
dipoles and BA receivers, and work it with a plain old transceiver and wire or
beam antennas.

Did anything like that ever happen? Is that the monster you refer to? I
haven't read QST in years so I don't know what the protocol would be for
accessing the beast.
--Mike K.

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

In article , "Gene Storey"
writes:

If the military isn't worried about its HF
assets, why should Hams be worried?

The military tends to run its war game exercises out in the boonies, in the
rural South or unpopulated dry Southwest. (Not counting military branches
that operate out in the oceans, or way up in the sky). The Army can place its
HF fixed stations out in remote areas and get away from noisy power lines.

Also the military, like the commercial interests, is moving more and more to
satellites for long-DX work, and UHF for short haul. I suspect they can both
live quite well with a noisy HF environment in wired areas.

In fact, I doubt anyone will try to take away Ham spectrum in the HF -- the
trend should be for more and more space to open up to international
broadcasters (quite a bit has already in the last decade) and to us Hams. 73,
Mike K.

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

In article , "Gene Storey"
writes:

I was excited about the microsats. Then they built this monster satellite
and spent millions on it. I don't know anyone in a 100 miles who uses it.

About 6-10 years ago I heard rumors of a Ham satellite that would use the HF
bands (not VHF/UHF) and pack enough power that we could pick it up on our
dipoles and BA receivers, and work it with a plain old transceiver and wire or
beam antennas.

Did anything like that ever happen? Is that the monster you refer to? I
haven't read QST in years so I don't know what the protocol would be for
accessing the beast.
--Mike K.

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

In article , "Gene Storey"
writes:

If the military isn't worried about its HF
assets, why should Hams be worried?

The military tends to run its war game exercises out in the boonies, in the
rural South or unpopulated dry Southwest. (Not counting military branches
that operate out in the oceans, or way up in the sky). The Army can place its
HF fixed stations out in remote areas and get away from noisy power lines.

Also the military, like the commercial interests, is moving more and more to
satellites for long-DX work, and UHF for short haul. I suspect they can both
live quite well with a noisy HF environment in wired areas.

In fact, I doubt anyone will try to take away Ham spectrum in the HF -- the
trend should be for more and more space to open up to international
broadcasters (quite a bit has already in the last decade) and to us Hams. 73,
Mike K.

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.

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.

In article , "Frank
Dinger" writes:

ARRL's drive to block the introduction of power line comms in the USA ,by
means of 'competent (engineering) reasoning' ,must be applauded.


It seems to me that the whole concept is flawed. Not that much BW (up to 30
MHz, or 5 cable TV channels), large power levels required to drive anything
into the grid, and a truly ungodly noise environment -- we Hams and SWLs
already know aobut light dimmers, etc. *radiating* from the power lines --
imagine trying to receive a signal *on* those lines.

OK, there are wireless intercoms and baby monitors and Plug-N-Power controlelrs
that use your house lines, but anything bigger feels to much like salmon
swimming upstream against the laws of common sense engineering. --Mike K.


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

In article , "Frank
Dinger" writes:

ARRL's drive to block the introduction of power line comms in the USA ,by
means of 'competent (engineering) reasoning' ,must be applauded.


It seems to me that the whole concept is flawed. Not that much BW (up to 30
MHz, or 5 cable TV channels), large power levels required to drive anything
into the grid, and a truly ungodly noise environment -- we Hams and SWLs
already know aobut light dimmers, etc. *radiating* from the power lines --
imagine trying to receive a signal *on* those lines.

OK, there are wireless intercoms and baby monitors and Plug-N-Power controlelrs
that use your house lines, but anything bigger feels to much like salmon
swimming upstream against the laws of common sense engineering. --Mike K.


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

On 18 Oct 2003 02:40:10 GMT, r (Mike Knudsen) wrote:

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.

Or you can just listen to an internet (re)broadcast, possibly even with
better sound quality. Face it, in terms of access-to-information, radio
waves are no longer the premiere source. Of course, it would be relatively
easy for the US government (almost any government) to cut off particular
sites, but until they start doing that, claims of overt or unobtrusive
censorship are fairly off the wall.

Jasper