"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

HTML format content snipped ... Dick, if you'd learn to set your newsreader
to "plain text" (the convention) and use "'s" to preserve the attribution,
then
re-post, I'd be happy to rebut your nonsense ...

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

73 de Larry, K3LT

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(No CW Test) wrote in message ...

For the record, I have not
used PSK-31 myself on
the amateur bands.

So I will not lecture others
on how well it does or
does not work.

Yet Dick is free to lecture others, i.e., "any idiot can get psk going
in under 30 minutes," but by his own words here he couldn't.

That is the point.

http://www.geocities.com/horseshoestew/youdick.wav

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

That is the point.

You're wearing the point on your head.

You're wearing your name on your head.

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Brian wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote;

You're wearing the point on your head.

You're wearing your name on your head.

At least I don't have to resort to outright lying to make my namr OR my point.
That's about all you ever do.


"Yep, I said that Shannon's law really has nothing to
do with ham radio, and then I proceeded to describe a
case that proved it ."

It seems you resort to outright ignorance, which was indeed
the point above, and it clearly isn't a lie.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

His answer, which he has repeated several times now, was that
Shannon doesn't apply the anything about Amateur Radio.

At that point, what choice does one have but to write DICK off as
so ill informed that he should be totally ignored.

-

OK Frostproof Floyd, there you go again, or maybe I should say
"still". Just can't get it together when it comes to ham radio,
can you? You prove it yet one more time.

Speaking of proofs, you've generated a real beauty he

If you think I have insufficient undestanding of Shannon's
infornmation theory that's because you're terribly uninformed
yourself. What my little recited experience showed, when the
PSK was not copyable but the CW ID was, is merely to further
confirm what I said- Shannon and his little mathematical circus
really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham radio. ...

Now Claude Shannon's work is a "little mathematical circus"!
And you've added *EMPHASIS* to the statement that it has nothing
to do with ham radio.

DICK, you've made my point for me and there is very little else
to say.

What the "PSK-NO, CW-YES" incident showed was that Shannon
DOES NOT apply **when the channel is not set by his rules**,
which WAS exactly the case, as is virtually always the case in
ham radio.

Well, there is one other thing to say. But I've stolen this
from Cecil once or twice already, so I'll quote him directly
this time:

"Again, power level is only one of three inter-related
parameters. If they are not all equal, then the playing field
is not level. Your being able to copy the CW ID, which has an
equivalent 12dB power advantage, is like saying a 150w SSB
signal is easier to copy than a 1w CW signal. It's true but it
is also meaningless.

Thanks to DICK CARROLL'S LOGIC, SSB can be proven to be
superior to CW every time. That follows from ignoring any of
the throughput parameters."

Cecil, W6RCA

Another way of looking at it, is that Shannon's "rules" do
apply, and that is virtually *always* the case in ham radio.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

At least I don't have to resort to outright lying to make my namr OR my point.
That's about all you ever do.

"Yep, I said that Shannon's law really has nothing to
do with ham radio, and then I proceeded to describe a
case that proved it ."

It seems you resort to outright ignorance, which was indeed
the point above, and it clearly isn't a lie.


If anyone needed proof that DICK really is that ignorant, this
post removed all doubt!

DICK, you should check out the option that google has for
removal of archived articles. You really don't want any of
these articles to be hanging around where they can be quoted
again.

Too late now though, because I sure won't ask them to remove
my post! Your statement is now on record, *forever*.

Well, there ya go, hopping across the tundra again, Frosty.
Since you so conveniently snipped all the information from my post,
I'll just insert it again here, for information of the
readers....wouldn't want anyone
to miss anything....
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you think I have insufficient undestanding of Shannon's infornmation theory that's
because you're terribly uninformed yourself. What my little recited experience showed,
when the PSK was not copyable but the CW ID was, is merely to further confirm what I said-
Shannon and his little mathematical circus really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham
radio. Of course, the lone exception would have to be to allow idiots like you and a few
others to put together trash posts on usenet, but that's a separate issue.

BTW, can you tell us why Shannon's little "circus" doesn't
relate to the Viterbi coding used by PSK-31 or the QPSK
modulation, and how that doesn't relate to effective
communications (compared, for example to CW)? I don't believe
you, and I'd sure like to hear more about it...

What the "PSK-NO, CW-YES" incident showed was that Shannon DOES NOT apply **when the
channel is not set by his rules**, which WAS exactly the case, as is virtually always the
case in ham radio. When one works PSK31, the data portion is filtered to a much tighter
specification than the amateur HF receiver as a whole, being done in the DSP function of
the computer. The "channel" is not set by that narrow filter, only the PSK channel.

It appears you don't actually know much about PSK-31 do you?
Did you ever actually get it to work at all?

When the CW ID comes throuth, and the PSK does not,
it confirms that **in amateur radio applications**, where the communicatons channel in use
is not constrained by Shannon's rules, they cannot be applied with any accuracy. Thus they
don't apply. They * CAN'T* apply.

Wrong. *Any* communications channel in use is constrained by
Shannon's rules.

"The Channel" is whatever the ham radio operator, and his gear, set it to be. So when I
work PSK31 and it can't print, but the CW- ID comes through loud and clear, to quote Cecil
Moore, "The playing field is not level, the comparison is unfair". That was the best he
could do, to insist that I also push the CW signal through the 30 cycle wide filter so
that IT couldn't be copied just like the PSK couldn't be. Nonsense!

What 30 cycle filter are you talking about? There is none.

The problem is you are comparing two different data rates
through the same channel. PSK-31 runs at 31.5 bits per second.
If you used CW at that rate, it works out to about 37.8 wpm.
Are you telling me *you* can copy 35 wpm using a 200 Hz filter
when there is Doppler distortion from auroral activity?

In fact, what you've done is demonstrate that Shannon's work
*does* apply to ham radio! PSK-31 is an m-ary channel using
QPSK (where m = 4), which trades signal to noise ratio for
bandwidth to obtain the same data rate as it would using
straight phase modulation.

What *you* should be saying is that your experience demonstrates
that Shannon's theories prove true in the practical application
of ham radio. When the SNR is low, CW can be useful, albeit at
very low data rates, if restricted bandwidth is a requirement.
Of course, if the bandwidth wasn't restricted to 200 Hz, almost
any variation on PSK modulation would out run CW for efficiency,
as can easily be demonstrated using Shannon's formula.

When (if ever) ham radio gear is manufactured so that the Shannon limit is built into
the equipment, and *that* sets the channel limit, obviously my statement will no longer be

Well, danged. I believe that "the Shannon limit is built into"
every piece of communciations equipment I've ever seen. Tell me
about the gear you use where it isn't! I'd like to know about
this infinite bandwidth you have, and the lack of noise. Must
be interesting.

true, as I certainly trust - hope?- you can see. But I see you're not anywhere nearly as
sharp as Cecil, and that certainly comes as no surprise

Cecil is indeed a sharp fellow, and I don't think I'm insulted
if I don't measure up to him.

But maybe that bit about you being too dumb to be a real ham is
true, eh?

So you passed a ham radio test in 1960, then promptly forgot about it all. Now you show
up on usenet to portray yourself as some sort of Guru Expert Professional. Why don't you
just crawl back across the tundra to your rabbit hole- The game's over
You're nothing but a Lennie who once held a license.

And that is another compliment.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

Well, there is one other thing to say. But I've stolen this
from Cecil once or twice already, so I'll quote him directly
this time:

"Again, power level is only one of three inter-related
parameters. If they are not all equal, then the playing field
is not level. Your being able to copy the CW ID, which has an
equivalent 12dB power advantage, is like saying a 150w SSB
signal is easier to copy than a 1w CW signal. It's true but it
is also meaningless.

Thanks to DICK CARROLL'S LOGIC, SSB can be proven to be
superior to CW every time. That follows from ignoring any of
the throughput parameters."

Obsuscation when Cecil said it, more of the same from you!. There is
nothing there related whatever to the case cited. QED
....
If you're serious it only means that YOU don't understand Shannon's work
The channel bandwidth limit is central to any application Shannon 's theory.

They why we can increase the SNR and get more channel capacity
regardless of the bandwidth? Sounds like bandwidth isn't so
central after all, eh?

Hmmm... maybe, just maybe, that was what Cecil was getting at,
by leaving all else the same and just providing more signal to
increase the channel capacity despite whatever the bandwidth
was?

See DICK, just having attempted to use PSK-31 hasn't made you into
much of a yard stick to measure hams by. Using CW didn't seem to
help you much either... so I can't see you as a shining example of
any need to have a CW test prerequisite to having a ham ticket.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Floyd Davidson wrote in message
...

So, what we get down to is Extra DICK don't know Shannon from
Shinola. What a hoot.

I think that bad dog just got swatted with a rolled newspaper.

The man from misery doesn't have enough working neurons to
understand he was hit.

Another side-effect syndrome of Beeperitis.

LHA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)

That's "extra DICK" to you, Carl... :-)

The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Larrah has the fantasy of being a "moderator" in here.

He's another victim of Beeperitis.

LHA

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

How are we going to measure it though? ... Hmmm, I guess we may just
need Larry "The Measuring Stick" Roll after all!

My suggestion on that sort of "stick" is to STICK IT.

I think we all know where... :-)

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Larry,

I don't expect "exalted status" ... just some respect as one who is arguably
more knowledgable and competent in RF technology than the average ham.

Carl:

You have been shown that respect quite consistently, particularly by me.
However, the fact that you seem to be ignoring that fact is getting to be
more than a little bit off-putting.

It hasn't been YOU showing any "respect" Larrah. Sure, you've tossed
in some "polite" small phrases now and then, but then followed that up
with LOTS of "off-putting" disrespectful sentences and phrases all about
your own self-promotion as "expert in communications.".

However, as has been pointed out, you insist that your superior CW skill
is ALL that counts and that since I'm not up to your standards in that area
I'm a "lesser ham."

It's a simple fact that you don't have operating experience and proficiency
in Morse/CW, which I consider to be one of the most useful communications
skills in the radio amateur's arsenal.

Hmmm...let's see...

Larrah claims employment at Radio Shack prior to his 20 years with USAF.
In the USAF he flew a desk and never did any USAF communications.
Then he claims attending college with "summa cum laude" title add-on and
thus able to get any Human Resources career position he wants after
graduation...instead of landing a job as a Personnel specialist, he winds up
a BUS DRIVER but insist on calling his occupation "paratransit specialist."

Yes, a whole heaping glob of "communication skills" in that short resume.

For marketing folks and snake-oil salesmen.

A mere 50 1/2 years ago I was doing trans-Pacific HF transmissions as
part of my military service. At no time during my 3 years in that was there
ANY morse code used for primary communications. The USN radio HF
primary and USAF HF primary communications used the same TTY and
voice and FAX modes at that time. By 1978 HF comm was relegated to
secondary status, all US military branches.

For a half century the military and commercial carriers on HF have NOT
used any manual morse telegraphy for primary communications. But
the soma come loud bus driver insists that "morse code is a primary
skill!"

Ah, but the bus driver insists that is needed in amateurism! Of course,
to keep alive a living museum of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

To keep that legend alive, he insists that ALL who desire to enter a
radio hobby activity MUST take a manual telegraphy test!

Larrah's only justification is his holier-than-everyone opinion and self-
elevation to Raddio Godd status.

I have always acknowledged your
superior, professional-grade technical skills, and those of all other hams of
all license classes who possess them. However, I must reiterate, this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service. The ARS has a long-standing tradition of
requiring proficiency in the use of the Morse code, for the purpose of
permitting radio amateurs to exploit the many benefits and advantages of
that particular mode.

Invalid on all accounts, Larrah. Your accounts are bankrupt.

The FCC is NOT chartered to preserve old legends and old traditions.

ARRL seems to think its duty is to keep the morse legends and myths
alive and doesn't shrink from that propaganda anymore now than they
did a half century ago. They refuse to modernize even though the IARU
sided with eliminating the code test in ITU-R S25.5.

The ONLY place where morse code skills are of "value" would be in
amateur radio. Even snake-oil salesmen who were morsemen couldn't
make a living communicating in morse these days.

But, you, the NON-communicator (except as a very amateur) want to
keep a federal law that forces all newcomers to test for morsemanship!

Incredible!

I have consistently stated that I feel that this skill is
important enough to radio AMATEURS that it simply cannot be replaced,
even with technical skills which exceed licensing requirements.

Not a problem for you Larrah. You know so little about radio-electronics
theory that morsemanship is ALL you have in radiocommunications.

This is my opinion, Carl -- not a demonstration of any lack of due respect.
I would expect a person of your intelligence to recognize and acknowledge
the difference.

Hmmph...I would have expected someone with Summa Cum Laude
status and new BA degree in "human resources" (PERSONNEL) to
"get any job he wanted" in said "human resources." You are now
driving a bus.

Don't worry Larrah...nearly all of us have the "intelligence to recognize
and acknowledge" snake-oil salesmen when they show up in here.

Moreover, I have never held myself out as anything more
than an "average" ham, with the notable exception of occasional hyperbole
used in this newsgroup (and nowhere else) to push the buttons of particularly
intransigent fellow participants, including your own good self.

HYPOCRITE!

Google has thousands and thousands of your own words archived where
YOU hold YOURSELF up as the "role model" of "expert" in anything you
are talking about, showing your "dedication and hard work" to become
an extra class morseman. As an AMATEUR.

Self-elevation. Self-promotion. That is all you do in here.

Now go shine up your big bus, "graduate (summa etc.) human resources
specialist," your passengers are waiting...

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Well, I'm sure Carl expects that his professional RF engineering
qualifications
should grant him exalted status in the ARS, but in truth, it just ain't so!

That is NO "expectation," just the whining of someone who was never
in the professional ranks of radio being envious of those who have.

Like it or not, amateur radio is still a technological activity. If it
weren't
you would be little more than a "CBer" with a license. BFD.

I know
lots of radio amateurs, of all license classes, who haven't made dime number
one as a professional electronics technician or engineer, who are infinitely
better hams than I am or Carl could ever be.

Then we can all guess that your vaunted Radio Shack days were all
done voluntarily? :-)

Define "better" hams.

What they all have in common is
the fact that they have, throughout their "careers" as radio amateurs, been
willing to explore and adopt new modes, while retaining the skills learned
with the old ones, particularly Morse/CW.

A "career" is what professionals do...it is their WORK.

Unless there has been a sudden change in Part 97, Title 47 CFR, US
amateur radio is NOT for pecuniary compensation. [that's why it is
called "amateur"]

Let's see...you've only mentioned the old-timers you know...who are,
not surprisingly, all very much pro-morse-code. Would that make you
"biased" as judging all of the US ARS? Not according to you (we can
all see the spin coming). According to everyone else except the pro-
code syncophants, the bias is VERY apparent.

Negative points for your appraisal, Larrah...

Their stations are truly up-to-date,
they have usually attained high places on the DXCC standings, routinely
hold leadership positions within their clubs, and can be counted on to
provide valuable input and personal support for all club activities.

Ahem..."truly up-to-date" is cribbing right from the old pre-WW2
Amateur's Code. You should be able to do better, with all your
Summa Cum Laude college studies for a Human Resources degree.

Well, you (and your "ilk" whatever those are) subscribe to the old
description of "amateur radio is all about working DX on HF with CW."
That's the high point of your "career in ham radio?" :-)

"Leadership in a club" is a rather title-hungry description, isn't it?
That would be fine if the "club" is all about DX contesting. However,
some pro-coders insist that US amateur radio is all about a "diverse"
interest range that includes other things than DXing. Which is it?

"Valuable input and personal support" is more self-gratification
phrasing, "standard boilerplate" phrasing it is called in the writing trade.
If a club is all about DXing, then I'm sure the old-timers' "valuable input
and personal support" will be for THEIR favorite activity which is DXing.
That's just self-definition stuff, Larrah, NOT something that covers the
wide range of activities possible in US amateur radio.

They are the ones
who newcomers look to for the answers, while the so-called "professional"
hams simply cluster amongst themselves and look down their noses at the
proceedings of the rest of the club.

Now, now, Larrah, there you go again showing your envy of radio and
electronics folks who have REAL careers in radio-electronics.

You are ALL about self-promotion and self-glorification.

You know so little of basic electronic theory that you don't dare get into
any discussion at all technical in nature about radio in here...you would
be shown to be the self-glorifying flim-flam salesman you probably are
and then YOU look down your nose at those who are knowledgeable!

Feel free to go out and get a REAL job in radio that needs your morse
code skill and expertise and report back, okay? Make a CAREER in
code! Bum a ride on your company's bus if you need to...

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

(No CW Test) wrote in message ...

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I think most reasonable people can accept that.

But what is unacceptable is DICK's assertion that any idiot can pick
up PSK in 30 minutes, when he has had weeks of trouble with the mode
by his own words.

No?

No, in a word. If you believe I said such a thing, why don't you google it up and post it here, to stave
off the well earned title of bald faced liar? *I* know why, but others may not. It's because YOU ARE a
bald faced liar, as well as your village's favorite
pointyhead

DICK, your words are so magnificent; why do you deny them?

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio. The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we
can
analyze other hams on the basis of their technical and operational activities.
The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do. What we do have is curiosity, and a
willingness to learn. We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

The whole point is that this business of DICK and Larry claiming
that what they can do, is what everyone else _must_ do, is
ridiculous on its face because there are many others we could
use as a standard that would put the two of them out the door as
well.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science
of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications. Now, to
be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems. I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for
that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs. However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs. They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes. Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

someone else has used or not used *any* of those, is not really
significant... if I or someone else has in fact used *dozens*
of other digital systems, including many of the more recent
ones. There is _nothing_ special about PSK-31, other than it
is just about the upper limit of DICK's lack of experience.

However low Dick's "upper level" of experience is compared to your
professional technical experience is irrelevant. This is a discussion of
the AMATEUR radio service, and the experiences of AMATEUR
radio operators is the only valid basis for the comparison of the relative
level of technical involvement among radio amateurs. Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

DICK is the *only* one who has suggested otherwise. Everyone
else has told him his reasons for such claims are bogus. So
what is *your* point?

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on
his practical operating experience as a radio AMATEUR using
modes authorized in the AMATEUR radio service. The only thing
"bogus" around here is your futile attempt to discredit him.
__________________________________________________ ___

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , (No
CW Test) writes:


The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW,

I have a feeling that if and when BPL is implemented on a large scale,
PSK-31 is going to be rendered useless for hams that have BPL service
in their area.

and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

On many occasions, the only part of a PSK-31 transmission I could "copy"
was the Morse code CW ID at the end of the transmission! And these
instances were under what I'd call "normal" operating conditions. The one
thing that has kind of disappointed me about PSK-31 is that it really isn't
all that robust when faced with even moderately trashy band conditions.
In fact, a lot of times when I had to give up on PSK-31, I went over to plain
'ole RTTY and was able to keep going. PSK-31 is great, and I like it a lot,
but I'm glad I have CW and RTTY/AMTOR/PACTOR as a backup.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Yet Dick is free to lecture others, i.e., "any idiot can get psk going
in under 30 minutes," but by his own words here he couldn't.

Brian:

It took me more like four hours to get PSK-31 running, counting the time
it took to cobble together my sound card interface, download and install
the software (DigiPan, at the time), and get the settings right. However,
it's good to know I'm not an "idiot!"

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

As if Larry never calls anyone names on Usenet.

You're a lowlife hypocrite Larry, in so many ways its just
unbelievable how many times you trip on your own feet.

Floyd:

Ah ha -- raise objections to my "name calling" and make your point with
more name calling of your own! A typical non-response! I must
admit, Floyd, you're really dialed-in on the classic Usenet attitude!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)
The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Carl:

You referred to Dick as "dumb." Any reasonably objective observer in
this NG would not arrive at that conclusion. Hence, you were engaged
in name calling, regardless of whether it was a quoted source or not.

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Carl - wk3c

A good question, Carl. I've always wondered exactly what your alleged
technical competence has to do with ANY discussion in this NG! After
all, this is about AMATEUR radio! While I freely admit that I do have a
great deal of respect for hams who do possess genuine, professional-
grade technical qualifications, you, and your apologists Floyd Davidson
and Len Anderson, tend to raise the noise level to BPL standards!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZnchnoffrrzgnopf.......Whaaaa. .....Oh, Lennie...
did you say sumpthin?

Yes. You fell asleep at the wheel again.

W A K E U P ! ! !

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio.

Amateur radio POLICY, soma come loud bus driver.

RADIO is a technical activity involving communications.

Electrons, fields and waves don't work any differently in one radio
service versus another just because a human regulating agency
separated them in some regulations. You still don't understand
that concept.

The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we
can
analyze other hams on the basis of their technical and operational activities.

Larrah, you CONSTANTLY use YOURSELF as the "yardstick" by which
others are "measured"...whether it's in ham radio or occupation or anything.

Ho hum. Your constant ego-boo is very tired-putting of readers.

The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself.

Is someone actually MAKING MONEY posting in this newsgroup?!?

All posts in here are DEFINITELY "amateur" in that regard...the opposite
of professional writing.

The only thing irrelevant in here is your insistence that US amateur radio
is full of technical dummies (like yourself).

Not very nice of you.

If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do.

See? Your own "yardstick" in action.

You've just implied that YOUR "expertise" is the SAME as two-thirds of
a million US ARS licensees...all of them technical dummies who can't
do anything but plug-and-play-ham-radio.

A great and glorious gratuitous INSULT to thousands of US ARS licensees
who ARE ALSO professionals in radio.

Feel proud of yourself. You are an archtypical ham Dumb who can't get
dumber.

What we do have is curiosity, and a willingness to learn.

Tsk, tsk, there you go again, shaking your little "we-we" thing.

We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

Of course...Amateur radio is all about working DX on HF with CW.

Not to mention collecting colorful postcards, fancy certificates, and
rising above all others in radio on self-inflated ego balloons filled with
hot air.

The whole point is that this business of DICK and Larry claiming
that what they can do, is what everyone else _must_ do, is
ridiculous on its face because there are many others we could
use as a standard that would put the two of them out the door as
well.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science
of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications.

Oh, my, you so good and great margarine don't melt in yo' mout.

Now, to
be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems. I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for
that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs.

Thank you, Your Holiness.

Sigh...another sermon on the antenna mount.

However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs. They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

Sigh...morsemanship is the epitome of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

In your imaginary reality. One that Rod Serling never touched...

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes.

QEX ought to devote a whole two-month issue just to YOU...

Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

You just consider yourself "more qualified" than ANYONE.


However low Dick's "upper level" of experience is compared to your
professional technical experience is irrelevant. This is a discussion of
the AMATEUR radio service, and the experiences of AMATEUR
radio operators is the only valid basis for the comparison of the relative
level of technical involvement among radio amateurs.

Tsk, tsk, there you go again...making US ham radio nothing but
Dummies like YOURSELF.

Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

You've got "yardstick" engraved with your own name in gold.

This isn't a "yardstick" for egos, gas man.

Those who KNOW radio technology can MAKE radios and APPLY
them in communications.

Amateur Dummies can only buy them, plug them in, and play with
them.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

Geez...you've NEVER been qualified in anything except being a
newsgroupie, Larrah.


And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

1. You aren't objective, you are SUBJECTIVE.
2. All you can claim is "operating" and even then no one gets on
a "sked" with you.
3. All you claim is nothing more than plug-and-play with ready-
made toys.
4. All you've learned as a soma come loud personnel student is a
bunch of gobbledegook nonsense phrases.

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

Translated: You won't acknowledge anything that doesn't prove your
intrinsic glory and greatness.

DICK is the *only* one who has suggested otherwise. Everyone
else has told him his reasons for such claims are bogus. So
what is *your* point?

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on
his practical operating experience as a radio AMATEUR using
modes authorized in the AMATEUR radio service. The only thing
"bogus" around here is your futile attempt to discredit him.

Extra DICK discredits himself technically very handily.

__________________________________________________ __

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

"Empirical theory?!?"

Did you learn that as a soma come loud college student?!?

No wonder no personnel department ever offered you a job.

LHA

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Larrah has the fantasy of being a "moderator" in here.

Whew! Pot/Kettle/Black if ever there was an example!

We all KNOW Larrah to be a "pot-kettle-black" for many years, even
back on FIDOnet. No need to state the obvious.

Now stop with reduncancies in posting, pSycho pSteve, and take
your medications like a good lad.

Remember, YOU aren't the moderator in here despite what your
psychosis imagines.

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)
The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Carl:

You referred to Dick as "dumb." Any reasonably objective observer in
this NG would not arrive at that conclusion.

Trouble is, YOU don't belong here as any sort of "objective observer."

Hence, you were engaged
in name calling, regardless of whether it was a quoted source or not.

Poor baby...you saw a mirror held up and thought someone was
reflecting YOUR image. Baaaaad overinflated ego complex you have.

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Carl - wk3c

A good question, Carl. I've always wondered exactly what your alleged
technical competence has to do with ANY discussion in this NG! After
all, this is about AMATEUR radio!

Larrah, it's just too bad that US amateur radio doesn't have a book,
"Radio for Dummies" that you could read to find out what radio, ANY
radio IS...you NEED one.

"Radio" is a general activity involving technology in and about radio
communication.

Radios do NOT work "differently" because some regulating agency
states one radio activity is "amateur" and another radio activity is
"commercial/professional." Electrons, fields and waves work the SAME
in ANY radio regardless of human legislation.

You can't understand that. I wonder why?

Maybe its because you can't distinguish one active from another...like
all your bragging about "summa cum laude human resources graduate"
and then you get a BUS DRIVER job.

While I freely admit that I do have a
great deal of respect for hams who do possess genuine, professional-
grade technical qualifications, you, and your apologists Floyd Davidson
and Len Anderson, tend to raise the noise level to BPL standards!

Poor baby...still miffed at no one recognizing your intrinsic Greatness?

Technically, you know NOTHING about "BPL" except a lot of hysteric
emotionally-fueled gabbling and paranoia and ten kinds of NIMBY
shouts and hollerings.

Come back when you've learned a smidgen of technical knowledge and
can talk sensibly with some evidence of knowing a small bit about the
technology. [I doubt that will ever happen...]

PROFESSIONALS made all your little radios possible as a product so
that you could buy them, play with them, and then sit around POSING
as an "amateur guru-expert-knowitall."

Don't bite the hands of those who made all your toys.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


We all KNOW Larrah to be a "pot-kettle-black" for many years, even
back on FIDOnet. No need to state the obvious.

Now stop with reduncancies in posting, pSycho pSteve, and take
your medications like a good lad.

Remember, YOU aren't the moderator in here despite what your
psychosis imagines.

That's right, Steve! I'm the "moderator" here! If you don't believe me,
just aks Lennie!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

Your village is calling again.....

Yet you answer the phone...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick,
Larry,
Dan, Bruce...

Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that
Dick, Larry, et al deserve ...

"Us Extras"? Whooo, that's rich, Carl!

Yes, Dave, "Us Extras" ... much as it may eat at you, I'm an Extra, too.

Sure you are, Carl--now.

(FCC said so ... and it's up to them, not you ... :-P

That's right. After all, "us" Extras have to stick together. Right?

For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or
their national equivalent thereof).

What differentiates a majority from a vast majority? In a country with
only two license classes, the higher class license is equivalent to the
U.S. Extra?

When I said "or their national equivalent thereof," I was refering to our
Director from New Zealand ... a long-time, coded ham of their highest
class.

Their *higher* class. In a country with two classes of license, the
higher class is equivalent to the U.S. Extra?

Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our
membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other
license classes.

What constitutes a "significant number" of Extas when compared to the
percentage of your membership holding a license for which no code test
is required?

I haven't calculated the exact percentage, but we have a LOT of members
who hold an Extra class license ... and that's not just since folks were
able
to upgrade with "only 5 wpm."

Noted that there is no indication of what "significant number" or "a LOT
of" actually means.

So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ...

...and I gather that you don't have many members who support code
testing :-)

That's right ... one of the requirements for membership is supporting
the elimination of Morse testing.

I'm glad you made that clear. Then it certainly isn't "the Extras" You
mean anyone of any class who supports continued morse testing.

Dave K8MN

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Dick, your technical ignorance is showing TWOFOLD.

First, Floyd said "the SNR and get more channel capacity


regardless of the bandwidth" ... which is clearly true.


Second, you said "When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth? I knew you has your head on bassackwards."

You certainly CAN increase SNR by narrowing the bandwidth.



Which is EXACTLY the meaning of what I said in question form!
Uh, Carl, where'd you learn to read?

Where did you learn to communicate?

If you increase the SNR by decreasing the bandwidth, you *don't*
get any increase in the channel capacity. What have you gained?

Nothing...

On the other hand, if you increase the SNR by leaving the
bandwidth as it is, and increase the signal level, you get more
capacity!

You don't think that "bandwidth is central" when you can increase
SNR by narrowing bandwidth? What physics do you and Frosty practice?

Try physics that actually accomplish something. What you are
suggesting has no effect on channel capacity.

Surely not the same that ALL hams do. Narrowing the bandwidth to eliminate
noise and other interference IS the most common way to get it done, for
darn
sure within ham radio.

It also reduces the channel capacity. At 500 Hz, with CW, you
are limited to what? 40 wpm or so for a good CW operator.

But with a 2.1 KHz bandwidth they could use SSB, for example,
and transfer *many* *many* times more information.

By *your* methods of comparision, you've just proven that SSB is
more efficient than CW.

(Of course, using your methods we could "prove" almost
anything!)

Since noise is essentially constant across the spectrum,


No, it isn't, although I understand the concept of assuming it to be so
for any
reasonably narrow slice of spectrum under consideration.


it can
be measured in noise power per unit bandwidth (noise power/Hz).
Thus, in a 1 kHz bandwidth, there will be 1000x more noise
power (30 log 10) than in a 1 Hz bandwidth. Thus, the noise floor
is lower in narrower bandwidths.

What part of this don't you get?


Where'd you get the idea that I don't get this???

That's EXACTlY what I said when I asked

"When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth?"

The answer is: you get no change in the channel capacity.

(How did you pass the Extra test
anyway???)



I'm beginning to wonder how you made it out of elementary school

I sure passed it long, long, long, long before you did, and at the FCC
district office!
Didn't miss a single question, either- you watch the grader's pencil
hand to see how many
check marks he/she makes. In my case it was none.

Yes, and here you are years later *proving* that none of that
was accomplishing a darned thing, because obviously *you* passed
so it can't have been working correctly. That's exactly why
none of that is now required.

If you and your other buddy with limited or NO amateur radio experience
had spent some time on the CW bands WORKING CW instead of bitching about

I'll bet that I have more time actually copying CW than you do!

the code test maybe you'd know some of this stuff without having to
resort to
an obscure theory that isn't even mentioned until third year of a
college EE program,
never appeared ANYWHERE in the amateur radio technical literature until
recently,
and only briefly in electrical engineering handbooks. You're absolutely
FIXATED on
insisting that all hams MUST have engineering level; knowledge and
experience in
manipulating Information Theory at the laboratory level.

Hmmm... you mean hams are that ignorant as a rule???

I don't believe you. I think it's just you and Larry.

What a load of Bull****! ALL of radio got along quite well for a half
century before
Shannon ever thought it up, and after he did there was virtually no use
for it until the advent
of DSP chips.

More of your ignorance. As I've pointed out previously, the
entire direction of communications technology switched gears
immediately after Shannon published his works. DSP chips were a
*result* of Shannon's work, not something that enabled Shannon.

So why don't you join Frosty out on the tundra and do a ritual dance to
celebrate Shannon
and all his math?


OBIT-- want work some DX? Here's my log from last night on ~14.010,
just sitting at the computer with the radio headphones on and idly
listening to what
was going on---

CYO
RN6AT
SV1LV

Betcha you won't catch many of those folks on 20 meter SSB these days.

And I didn't have to give Shannon a single thought.

With no brain to use for thinking, how could you have?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Dick Carroll; wrote:


Floyd Davidson wrote:

some snippage

You increase the SNR, regardless of the bandwidth, by increasing the
signal level DICK.


Well, so much for your technical knowledge if THAT"S all you know about
it. Any experienced
ham, even without ANY tech schooling whatever, knows better than that.


As a dilletante, I realize that in any ratio, there are two numbers.

So while it is quite possible to make the s/n ratio larger by
increasing the signal, it is equally possible, and sometimes much better
to increase the s/n ratio by lowering the noise. Sometimes it is the
*only* option available.

Seems like narrowing the bandwidth might just do that!

your humble hockey puck, 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
OBIT-- want work some DX? Here's my log from last night on ~14.010,
just sitting at the computer with the radio headphones on and idly
listening to what
was going on---

CYO
RN6AT
SV1LV

Betcha you won't catch many of those folks on 20 meter SSB these days.

Gee, Dick, I've logged SV2, RNx's, UAx's and a lot of others ... have you
worked those Russian Islands WAY north of Norway? I think there are
only 1 or 2 ops there ... I have that one, too.

BFD ...

And I didn't have to give Shannon a single thought.

You don't appear to be *capable* of thinking Shannon through
and really understanding the significance of his work ... Floyd is
right ... you're just a "glorified CBer."

Carl - wk3c

Floyd Davidson wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Dick Carroll; wrote:


Floyd Davidson wrote:

some snippage

You increase the SNR, regardless of the bandwidth, by increasing the
signal level DICK.


Well, so much for your technical knowledge if THAT"S all you know about
it. Any experienced
ham, even without ANY tech schooling whatever, knows better than that.


As a dilletante, I realize that in any ratio, there are two numbers.


Actually, there are three (bandwidth, signal, and noise) which
are related to channel capacity by the following formula

Capacity = Bandwidth * Log2 ( 1 + Signal/Noise )

The debate is over comparing *efficiency* of different modes (CW
and PSK-31), and hence the channel capacity for such a
comparison, must be normalized.

Reducing the Bandwidth parameter does decrease the observed SNR
in the channel, but the Capacity is not increased because the
actual noise power per Hz is unchanged.


So while it is quite possible to make the s/n ratio larger by
increasing the signal, it is equally possible, and sometimes much better
to increase the s/n ratio by lowering the noise. Sometimes it is the
*only* option available.


However, what has to change is the noise power per Hz, and
reducing the bandwidth does not change that.


Seems like narrowing the bandwidth might just do that!


Increasing the signal power has the desired effect. There are
other ways to accomplish that, of course. Reduction of noise by
any means other than reducing the bandwidth (switching from an
omni directional antenna to a directional antenna, for example)
will have the desired effect.

Okay. What we have here is two separate arguments IMO. Everyone is right


your humble hockey puck, 8^)


Hows come, then, you don't have a Canadian call sign?


Ohh, I just got that pejorative from someone here. I kind of like it
tho'. I'm still playing Hockey at my ripe old age, and will as long as I
can.

And I do like to get up to Canada whenever I can.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Floyd is
right ... you're just a "glorified CBer."

Carl - wk3c

This is Really Cute, MR CBplusser Carl, also head of CB International, calling
someone a Glorifed Cber.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Floyd Davidson wrote:

If you're serious it only means that YOU don't understand Shannon's
work
The channel bandwidth limit is central to any application Shannon 's
theory.

They why we can increase the SNR and get more channel capacity
regardless of the bandwidth? Sounds like bandwidth isn't so
central after all, eh?

When you can increase the SNR by narrowing the bandwidth? I knew you
has your head on bassackwards.

Dick, your technical ignorance is showing TWOFOLD.


I've a feeling Dick's got a lot more than just two folds...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:

Heh heh... shows what you know about ham radio!....when hams who actually
get on the air find
the need, they just modify their channel. You know, things like variable
width IF, various
filters, IF shift all those things you're unfamiliar with since you'vve
never actually used
any of them.

Extra DICK, you shouldn't drink and Internet.

Sure, you can reconsult Shannon to get the skinny on the new channel, but
we hams have no
need to do that, if you don't already know. We'll leave all that to you and
Putzie to handle in
your spare time for your own entertainment. We have more interesting things
to do ON THE AIR.
IT DOES NOT APPLY to ham radio operation, you fool!

Must be a lot of 'shine runnin going on in Misery.

Might explain the state's upcoming wine industry. :-)

LHA