Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message The "strawman designs" that Gary and I postulated did NOT contemplate the use of SS across the whole band as an "underlay." The modulation was completely different, with a fair amount of coding. That's not my recollection at all but for absolute certain any type of HF SS would require some bandwidth far in excess of the bandwidths currently permissable under the regs or acceptable by the users of the so-called legacy modes on HF. The inherent bandwidth characteristic of SS has made it destructively non-compatible with the modes currently in use in HF ham bands. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, ham HF SS is a non-sequiter. all sorts of simulated channel impairments into the system to make copying as hard as you want ... without having to trash the underlying, reliable communications system." Still rejected.) Exactly and none of it flew then and it never will. Why? ... if it looks to the user EXACTLY as "traditional Morse" one would not be able to tell the difference (and therefore should have no logical, rational reason for rejecting it). Your term IF is the Achilles heel of your whole argument. We've been down this road, i.e., the problem with logical/rational being the primanry drivers in ham radio. Ham radio is not a commercial service where logic is the driver. The standard issue ham is into ham radio for it's recreational value and the rest flows from there. they're neat electronic ping-pong games but IT AIN'T FRIGGING RADIO. Nobody is gonna go play electronic ping-pong so that you and Coffman can play band edge to band edge. I *was* talking about RADIO ... a system that would communicate over distances via radio ... just more reliably ... and THEN adding the impariments ("challenge") at the receiving end to satisfy those who "like to dig the weak ones out of the noise/QRM." Then you better find a like-minded programmer who has extensive real-world actual experience with weak-signal DXing and contesting CW and otherwise to write the code. You sure as hell are not qualified to do that. You're snapping around the edges of needing AI to pull off any such code. We all know how easy that is (?!). IBM has a well-funded crew of their comp sci & math geniuses and a mainfarme dedicated to periodically trying to beat one human chess player's brain. And chess is just a two-dimensional board game with rigid rules of play which allows large chunks of time to make the decisions on each move. HF CW contesting in particular has more dimensions than I can even start to count and decsions are routinely made several times a second. Just for openers. How ya gonna do it Carl? A bit of C++ and VB in a ham shack PC? Yeah, right. Not even a decent pipe dream. transmit data reliably over transcontinental distances ... with power outputs on the order of 10 mW ... as an "underlay" to existing services that don't even notice that they are there. Times how many stations? Quite a few, but to be honest I don't know the exact number (and if I did, I couldn't say). Bullet = Ducked I notice that TAPR has given up trying to get spread spectrum on the air. Nobody in TAPR cares enough about SS to work thru the bugs. There's a loud statement about ham SS. IMHO, TAPR's SS effort was doomed from the start by being overly complex. You're pretty good at that yourself. Carl - wk3c w3rv |