John Smith I wrote:
Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

Seems like in a REAL disaster, the need to xmit satellite maps of flood
areas, earthquake damage to bridges, structures, fires, hostiles?,
technical docs, medical documents/instructions/directions, signs, plans,
email, web data, etc. would be most appreciated if not desperately needed.

While VHF+ (satellite comms would be good!) may be suitable for some
flat terrain and moderate distances, availability of HF communications,
surely, would be a requirement in many situations

A laptop consumes VERY LITTLE power and can turn any xceiver into a VERY
powerful data transmission tool; most today would consider it a
requirement rather than a luxury.

However, PSK is highly unsuitable and the development of REAL tools
remains for the future ... new minds with up-to-date technology, methods
and skills will accomplishing this.

The future is coming ... like it or not.

JS

On Mar 18, 9:26?pm, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

Seems like in a REAL disaster, the need to xmit satellite maps of flood
areas, earthquake damage to bridges, structures, fires, hostiles?,
technical docs, medical documents/instructions/directions, signs, plans,
email, web data, etc. would be most appreciated if not desperately needed.

Perhaps, JS, perhaps, but don't rule out the established
infrastructure. Right after the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake
here, FEMA folks brought in a bunch of equipment doing
pictures (in high speed, BTW) via satellite relay. One of those
uses was a revolving pan around messages shown in video
from way out of town...written in their own handwriting/printing.

HF ham bands have typical TOTAL bandwidths of 500 down to
100 KHz. Unless you've got some "4th dimension" gizmotchy
(as yet unknown to the rest of technical mankind), ya just
ain't gonna get much "high speed" on HF. The bandwidth
just does NOT exist for what you want.

Now, if you have such a marvelous ultra-minimal bandwidth
"high-speed" modulator for HF, run, do not walk to the
nearest California Auxiliary Communications Service office
and offer it to them. It ain't all that far from Stockton to
Sacramento. The ACS considers *all* forms of
communications for disasters, big or small, and will be
eager for input on miracle methods. Dinna wurra, laddie,
if ya win the Nobel Prize for it, I will volunteer to write
your acceptance speech in Swedish to deliver to KIng
Gustav and all the others in Stockholm. [a pronunciation
guide will cost extra, though]

Until then, amateur HF still has 60 to 300 WPM text data
to send teleprinter communications, even en masse via
packet. That DOES fit into the narrow confines of HF.
What is left of the telephone network after a major, major
disaster can send limited-frame-speed video like what
was done from Kuwait-Iraq in 1991, all over the low-
resolution, narrow-band circuits on the telephone system.

73, Len AF6AY



While VHF+ (satellite comms would be good!) may be suitable for some
flat terrain and moderate distances, availability of HF communications,
surely, would be a requirement in many situations

A laptop consumes VERY LITTLE power and can turn any xceiver into a VERY
powerful data transmission tool; most today would consider it a
requirement rather than a luxury.

However, PSK is highly unsuitable and the development of REAL tools
remains for the future ... new minds with up-to-date technology, methods
and skills will accomplishing this.

The future is coming ... like it or not.

JS

wrote:

With data encryption/compaction and SS, HS data is NOT a problem, even
5K is usable for some data--while not truly HS (it was in 1995!), to
amateur radio it is (amateur radio has been consistently lagging behind
a decade or two or three.) :-D

The little software utilities I use between myself and a few good
friends are just for sport and the "fun of doing it." Once an open
standard has been chosen and a linux team is chosen, I will volunteer
some time and effort ... right now, there just isn't anything out there
which is of any interest.

And, in the shadows one never comes under unwarranted scrutiny or has to
worry about the letter of the rules ... :-X

I kinda like Ogg Vorbis for digital speech ... 8-)

JS

On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...
debate I call it whing maybe you are being polite


The future is coming ... like it or not.

ready or not too

JS

On Mar 19, 7:45?am, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

debate I call it whing maybe you are being polite

Not "whining." It's a technical barrier to reach "high speed"
approaching T1 rates on small slices of bandwidth. ALL radio
services face that same problem.

If at least 1 MHz of the 10m band could be used - at the
expense of ALL users of that portion of EM spectra, there
would be a chance for at least NVIS propagation at high
rates. That is NOT likely to happen for a minority of High
Speed fans to go against the overwhelming majority.

Mere resistance to the establishment is NOT a "just cause."
One MUST justify that resistance in order to begin changing
things. That justification is what the Students Wildly
Indignant about Nearly Everything (SWINE) usually overlook.

For "high speed" (really medium-low speed), the commercial
side of communications has developed the 56 KBPS modem
that works on a 3 KHz bandwidth. That is starting to bump
up against Shannon's Law, an extremely real technical
barrier. [it doesn't exceed it but it is close enough to almost
reach out and touch it...]

All electronics and radio works by the same Laws of Physics.
Those Laws are immune to the feelings, emotions, and
general imprecations of mankind. One MUST learn those
Laws and work WITH them in order to get them to work FOR
you.

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:

...
For "high speed" (really medium-low speed), the commercial
side of communications has developed the 56 KBPS modem
that works on a 3 KHz bandwidth. That is starting to bump
up against Shannon's Law, an extremely real technical
barrier. [it doesn't exceed it but it is close enough to almost
reach out and touch it...]
...
73, Len AF6AY

Len:

For all intents and purposes, 56K is HS for amateurs! I mean, sure it
is well over decade behind, but most amateurs are far behind that!

Anyway, 56K on SSB should only consume ~1.5Khz, if SSB with 3Khz
bandwidth is allowed--around ~100K can be expected. That will allow a
megabyte to be sent in ~1.5 minutes.

Now a 1.5 megabyte map can show quite a bit of detail, especially in
..JPG MONO format! That is MANY-MANY pages of the .TXT file--I mean, we
are talking a BOOK!

Yanno, in a REAL MAJOR emergency you are going to hear a LOT of people
asking, "What bandwidth rule?"

Only co-operation will be the mode of the day ...

Welcome to the new millennium, it has been a LONG time coming in these
parts ...

JS

On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

Seems like in a REAL disaster, the need to xmit satellite maps of flood
areas, earthquake damage to bridges, structures, fires, hostiles?,
technical docs, medical documents/instructions/directions, signs, plans,
email, web data, etc. would be most appreciated if not desperately needed.


You are overlooking the digital modes already available, for example,
SSTV and Fax for images. Although not fast, how many pictures of the
same item do you really need immediately for example? It is not going
to be a hardship if it takes a couple of minutes for the image to
transfer rather than a couple of seconds.

Text data (documents, instructions, directions, etc) are easily
handled by error correcting modes now available. Granted these modes
aren't used much but all the sender and recipient have to do is agree
on which mode.


While VHF+ (satellite comms would be good!) may be suitable for some
flat terrain and moderate distances, availability of HF communications,
surely, would be a requirement in many situations

A laptop consumes VERY LITTLE power and can turn any xceiver into a VERY
powerful data transmission tool; most today would consider it a
requirement rather than a luxury.


Depends on how hard up for power you are. In some cases, no problem.
In other cases, power will be so limited that you would only send the
most urgent of messages.

However, PSK is highly unsuitable and the development of REAL tools
remains for the future ... new minds with up-to-date technology, methods
and skills will accomplishing this.


There are tools that will meet these needs today. They are not as
fast as you would like them to be but they do work.

The future is coming ... like it or not.

JS

To shape the future, we need to understand the abilities of the
present. I'd suggest getting out there and working SSTV (ATV on UHF),
packet, RTTY, PSK31, AMTOR, PACTOR (I, II, and III), Hellschreiber and
the rest of the myriad "flavors" of digital out there. There is even a
variant of PSK that includes some error checking. Learn first hand
their strengths and weaknesses. Without this background, a developer
will be handicapped in coming up with something better. If he is not
knowledgeable on what is out there, he may end up "re-inventing the
wheel." If he is not knowledgeable about the strengths and weaknesses
of current modes, his new mode may end up having some of the same
issues.

One can't just wave a magic wand and say "let it be so."

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

...
You are overlooking the digital modes already available, for example,
SSTV and Fax for images. Although not fast, how many pictures of the
same item do you really need immediately for example? It is not going
to be a hardship if it takes a couple of minutes for the image to
transfer rather than a couple of seconds.

Text data (documents, instructions, directions, etc) are easily
handled by error correcting modes now available. Granted these modes
aren't used much but all the sender and recipient have to do is agree
on which mode.

Yes, like the "Model A" built by Ford, time to move up to new standards!
Surely time for the "Model B" anyway!

Depends on how hard up for power you are. In some cases, no problem.
In other cases, power will be so limited that you would only send the
most urgent of messages.

Well if you are that hardup for power, you darn well are NOT going to
let some waste it hammering out CW for EXTENDED periods of time,
transmitting data at LOW speeds or attempting to use voice and wasting
BOTH time AND power!


There are tools that will meet these needs today. They are not as
fast as you would like them to be but they do work.

There are still horses around but I'd rather drive a car ...

To shape the future, we need to understand the abilities of the
present. I'd suggest getting out there and working SSTV (ATV on UHF),

To shape the future we need progressive people to deal with it, the old,
the lame, the outdated, the slow, etc. must be moved aside. However,
when it comes to "antique people" they can be quite stubborn and
difficult to move aside! Gentle force must be applied ...

One can't just wave a magic wand and say "let it be so."

No, and we are working on the changes ... well, some are just arguing
that all is impossible, not worth doing, or is a waste of time ... but
what doesn't have its' "Nay Sayers?"

The future comes ... today it seems one day closer ...

JS

On Mar 19, 2:41 pm, John Smith I wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[snip]

To shape the future, we need to understand the abilities of the
present. I'd suggest getting out there and working SSTV (ATV on UHF),


To shape the future we need progressive people to deal with it, the old,
the lame, the outdated, the slow, etc. must be moved aside. However,
when it comes to "antique people" they can be quite stubborn and
difficult to move aside! Gentle force must be applied ...


It is more productive if these progressive people understand the
present methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses. The
strengths need to be conserved and the weaknesses eliminated,
hopefully without introducing new weaknesses.

Sometimes those "antique people" have valuable insights. Shoving them
aside could actually be detrimental to the development of new modes.
They are the ones who have the experience to supply information on
what weaknesses may need to be addressed. From a less altruistic
point of view, they may be the ones to have the money to fund the
progressive people.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

...
It is more productive if these progressive people understand the
present methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses. The
strengths need to be conserved and the weaknesses eliminated,
hopefully without introducing new weaknesses.
...
Dee, N8UZE


Dee:

This whole stance-proposal of yours is quite ridiculous, preposterous
and obviously only formed to put forth your own personal preferences ...

SSTV is but one GLARING example, sstv is stupid in the age of .mpg,
..avi, .divx, etc. with real-time encoding ...

The least you could do is take a class or read a few good books on data
compaction of speech, text, images, movies, etc. ...

You appear as a child discussing college physics ...

Don't even attempt to BS a fellow BS'er! 8-)

Regards,
JS