On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong
evidence to the positive.


Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.


Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact? What happened to
your "trained observation skills"?


and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities
occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these
illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous.


Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:07:25 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.

Why not? Are you claiming that empirical observation is not
sufficient? Are you now promoting the concept that if you are not
"right there" and personally witnessed an illegal transmission that
you can't factually determine that it was what it was?

Is your zeal to trounce me over my opposing political views blinding
your objectivity with regard to radio issues, which you have far
better knowledge of?


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong
evidence to the positive.


Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.

So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a channel and pick out
who the most blatant illegal operators are simply by the sound of
their rigs, and by the splatter they produce? Would it help you to
know that a spectrum analyzer connected to the I.F. of a receiver
confirmed my initial observation?

I never claimed to be able to make a quantitative evaluation, only a
determination that the transmissions were illegal.


Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact?

Because it is simply my opinion. What constitutes a "dreg" is
subjective.


What happened to your "trained observation skills"?

They are limited to technical evaluations of radio signals, which is
NOT subjective.


and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities
occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these
illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous.


Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.

If you hear a loud noise and turn around to see a souped up car
buzzing down the road at a high rate of speed, far above the posted
speed limit for that road, would you not be able to determine as a
fact that the car was being operated illegally?

No, you could not determine just how fast the car was traveling, but
you could easily tell from the excessive noise, and the rate of speed
as compared to the other (legal) cars, that this one was illegal.

If you are attempting to discount empirical observation as an invalid
method to determining facts, then there are a whole lot of scientists
who will be sorely disappointed. Starting with paleontologists all the
way to astronomers.


We don't agree politically Frank. That much is true. But don't let
that one facet taint your objectivity in other subjects.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?


When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you. I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you in lieu
of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits
repeating..........


Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?


When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you.

The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the
group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially
walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding
the effects of R.F. path loss.

of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for
"entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific
rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed
under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is
no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device
defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is
prohibited.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.


Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious comprehensive issues chastising
others for the same flaw.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?

When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you.

The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.


It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.


The only effect that "DX" may have is

heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any

case, when my observations were made, the

"DX" was not running heavy enough that a

clean sample of any particular transmission

could not be made.



You can qualify it away now, but your original claim is still bull****.
_
I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once

tried to tell me (and the group) that a 4 watt

skip station 1000 miles away could potentially

walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile

away,



Absolutely. In fact, I have taught you many things regarding HF
propagation and communication law of which you have no clue.

totally disregarding the effects of R.F.

.path loss.

Never. That last part was added desperation.

-
Coupled with your claim concerning roger beeps and echo on cb being
illegal (they're not) merely because you were unable to locate a rule
specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically

prohibit devices used for "entertainment" and

"amusement" purposes.


But only you continue to err and place such in that category. Your
argument is with the FCC, not those of us who are able to correctly
understand their law.

There is also a specific rule which outlines

permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not

listed under permissible tone signals.

Following simple logic, since there is no valid

rule which permits a particular device, then the
device defaults to one of "amusement or

entertainment" status and is prohibited.



That isn't simple logic, that's but an openly biased albeit incorrect
interpretation based on nothing more than your past stated disdain for
such items and your ignorance of the law that governs your hobby.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger

beep and (even more definite) an echo box

could be considered "entertainment" or

"amusement" devices and, as such, are

specifically prohibited.


Only by yourself.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't

care enough to make a case about these

things, and I would probably agree with you.


Not only would I never make such an invalid comparison, I disagree with
such a statement.
Email the fcc and ask them about your claim, Dave.

But the fact remains that they are prohibited

by the rules.


Insisting on remaining ignorant is your right at all cost.

Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.

Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious

comprehensive issues chastising others for

the same flaw.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:


The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.


It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.

Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty transmitter, and those
products show up as a "comb" of harmonics which decrease in amplitude
as you move farther away in frequency from the fundamental carrier. If
the fundamental signal is +10db over S9, then those distortion
products will be plainly heard if they are only 10 db or so down on an
adjacent channel. That same splattering station, when he fades down to
an S1 signal, is now so weak, that his adjacent channel splatter
products are now under the noise threshold of the receiver. THAT is
why you don't hear them.


This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong.

When it comes to radio theory, you haven't been correct about a single
thing.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
N3CVJ said
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.

It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.

Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty

transmitter,



Bleed,,splatter,,,,you're wrong, ya' know..a dirty transmitter is but
ONE example.............once again you incorrectly claimed that skip
does not affect splatter, and are trying to distance yourself from your
espoiused ignorance only after you have been corrected,
Several educated cbers and hammies have clued you in, but as always, you
aer set in your ways and you DO have the right to remain ignorant,
depite several people providing you the correct information.

and those products show up as a

"comb" of harmonics which decrease in

amplitude as you move farther away in

frequency from the fundamental carrier. If the

fundamental signal is +10db over S9, then

those distortion products will be plainly heard

if they are only 10 db or so down on an

adjacent channel.


You are arguing with yourself, again.
Try this: Your claim of dx has nothing to do with splatter is bull****.
Your claim that ony a dirty transmitter splatters,,is absoulte bull****.


That same splattering station, when he fades

down to an S1 signal, is now so weak, that his
adjacent channel splatter products are now

under the noise threshold of the receiver.

THAT is why you don't hear them.




This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong.

When it comes to radio theory, you haven't

been correct about a single thing.


....said the self-professed "radio Technician" who has been in radio for
"over twenty years"
and maintains incorrectly that roger beeps and echos are illeal on cb.
'Nuff said,

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the
group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially
walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding
the effects of R.F. path loss.

of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for
"entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific
rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed
under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is
no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device
defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is
prohibited.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

We've gone over this before Dave, your wrong.

same flaw.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver. All that's required is
enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate
each other. The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a
fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave
radios. And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have
heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:36:36 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath". The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter. A special
form of this is called "selective fading" which can cause different
parts of the signal to fade differently, which can distort the audio.
But this is not "splatter, and will not make the signal "bleed" more.
Heck the HF ham bands are almost always utilizing skywave propagation.
If what you say were true, then the ham bands would be virtually
unusable due to all the signals splattering across the band. With the
exception of a few bad apples running some illegal equipment, this is
normally not a problem.

All that's required is
enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate
each other.

I have never seen this happen in any of the quality receivers I've
owned over the years.

Unless the signal is in motion (doppler effect) the frequency will
remain the same even if the phase shifts. Since all the multipath
signal frequencies are the same, there will be no mixing products
generated.

If that were the case, then any group of signals, local or skip, would
do the same thing. That's not something that you'd want in a good
receiver. But you can't pin the faults of a bad receiver design on
atmospheric phenomenon.

This is almost as hokey as saying that a certain antenna will make you
sound "louder".

Propagation, like antennas, are passive. It only radiates or
re-radiates a signal. It does not modify it . If a signal is clean,
then the propagation will propagate it as such.

The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a
fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave
radios.

Ah! But why do you assume that I have a "cheap shortwave radio"?

What happens when you put a low noise GasFET preamp behind a bandpass
filter and then into a spectrum analyzer? Surely you know what
splatter looks like on a spectral display?

And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have
heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands.

A clear, and stable DX condition will not distort a radio signal.

A station which is backswinging wildly, with fuzzy distorted audio,
and splattering 3 channels in each direction, is running illegally,
regardless of the fact that the FCC hasn't yet cited them for it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"