"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!

The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9 QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..

Even so, would not the modulation characteristic be known, and therefore
a noise blanker developable, very much the way that Radio Hams do things?

Brenda Ann wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!
The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9
QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ...

The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9 QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..


to which, "Airy R. Bean" replied, in his usual,
unhelpful, childish, and predictably boring, repetitive manner...


What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, butnot for Radio Hams!


....which is really the NG equivalent of a noise source of 40dB over S9
QRM.


Dave

Even so, would not the modulation characteristic be known, and therefore
a noise blanker developable, very much the way that Radio Hams do things?

Brenda Ann wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!
The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9
QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ...

The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9 QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..


to which, "Airy R. Bean" replied, in his usual,
unhelpful, childish, and predictably boring, repetitive manner...


What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, butnot for Radio Hams!


....which is really the NG equivalent of a noise source of 40dB over S9
QRM.


Dave

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!

Is that why CBers use echo boxes so they can sound like SSB voices, without
the carrier insertion?

ak

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!

The problem is that this particular noise source produces 40dB OVER S-9 QRM
at 150 feet from the source... IIRC what I have read correctly..

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!

Is that why CBers use echo boxes so they can sound like SSB voices, without
the carrier insertion?

ak

What is the problem here? _REAL_ Radio Hams work with
signals that are deep in the noise all the time. There might be
a concern here by CBers who want S9 BBC quality, but
not for Radio Hams!

"Thierry" see my website wrote in message ...
Do you remember the problem caused by broadcasting tests via the power
line?
A lot of radio amateur have to support the RFI causes by these tests
everywhere in Europe.
All hope is not lost.
ITU officially recognized this was unacceptable...

"AK" wrote in message
news:mTkkb.810947$YN5.819762@sccrnsc01...

"Thierry" see my website wrote in message
...
Hi,

Do you remember the problem caused by broadcasting tests via the power
line?
A lot of radio amateur have to support the RFI causes by these tests
everywhere in Europe.
All hope is not lost.
ITU officially recognized this was unacceptable...

The problem in the States is that the ITU does not pay PAC bribes to
Congress for overlooking the obvious, and political hack FCC commissioners
have no concept of the technology they are supposed to be regulating. But,
what do expect out of a group of lawyers who were hired based on what they
could do to bring home the bacon to Congress from rich special interest
groups? But who knows, maybe a bunch of US hams buying 10 KW linear
amplfiers will help the economy out and return Congress to a balanced
budget
for one more blue-moon occasion? Yeah, sure - that's it, BPL will save the
U.S. economy.

ak K4YKZ



So here's a question: How many members of the US Congress and Senate are
hams? What are their names, phone numbers, etc?