|
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: 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 Do you get the feeling, deep down in the depths of your gut, that Larry "Yardstick" Roll is never going to hear the end of this *"Empirical Theory"* Yardstick..."Give a man an inch and he thinks he's a ruler!" :-) LHA |
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: So if I was to get on the air and talk to folks like you and Larry I, like you, would be less concerned with "Empirical Theory", eh? Floyd: Please, enlighten us. Provide a definition of the term "empirical." 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: 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. Ahem. Four. Include error rate. :-) Claude Shannon used teleprinters as a working example in his 1947 landmark paper. That made it more familiar to communications people in the REST of the communications world. Not many radio amateurs knew how teleprinters worked or how they were coded in 1947. :-) "Shannon's Laws" apply to EVERY communications medium, wired or wireless. According to a few ignorant extras the "don't apply" to amateur radio. :-) 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. Heh, it's hard enough to get amateurs to use the proper multiplier prefix on frequencies, let alone grasp a concept of noise power per unit bandwidth. :-) 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. your humble hockey puck, 8^) Hows come, then, you don't have a Canadian call sign? He might have drunk all his Canadian Club. :-) LHA |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: 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 Aw, Mike, don't mess up Floyd and Carl's playhouse. They're doing their darndest to trash an old CW fan, and you're spoiling it! Ah tries ma best, tha knows! In fact, their argument, which is correct as much as I've heard of it, seems to me to be the *reason* why your argument is correct. Ohhh, now I gave myself a headache. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "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 ... Yeah, and you waited for decades, stewing over a mere code test, for the day to come when you could...Then the frenzy started. What "frenzy" ... I do it relaxed as an incidental to other activities, working them as they show up. So do I ... Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... And we all already knew that, didn't we? ALso we *hams* knew that we didn't inten d nor want to get more channel capacity! What *we* want is to complete the intended communication! That's where your lack of acumen shows, Dick. Hams should strive to communicate efficiently. Well, well! If you truly believed that then you'd have gone on to *really* learn the code and used it long ago, instead of just complaining. After all, efficiency means more than anything Shannon came up with. ROTFLMAO! Inefficient use of our spectrum promotes congestion in the popular bands. Inefficient use of our spectrum will subject us to increased threats of spectrum grabs by commercial interests. By your measure, then, CW should be one of the most desirable modes in existance! REALLY ROTFLMAO NOW!!! It's clear that you actually, really believe this crap you spout ... that's pathetic. You actually, truly BELIEVE that OOK CW is efficient. Sad ... If you'd simply say, "It's fun and I like it and I hope it's with us forever as a mode available to hams." I'd say "Right on!" ... however ... Carl - wk3c |
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: Well, find me an entry-level Personnel Officer job in Kent County, DE with the same pay and benefits as my present job, and I'll take it! BTW, I applied for one in my own company last year, but it went to, of all people, one of my own classmates, a very fine, sexy-looking YL! She did NOT graduate with any kind of honors, since she took her program part-time and took over 7 years to get her degree, whereas I did mine on a full-time basis in 2.5 years. But I don't look as good in a cubicle as she does! No problem, we've never expected anything but the usual Roll Rationalizations. Lennie: That's pretty funny, but that is what actually happened! Quite frankly, if I had to choose between hiring "Suzie" (not her real name) and myself, I'd hire her each time! Quit fantasizing. You are in one of your dream-trance modes again, imagining you are able to hire anyone. You are NOT in any personnel department. You are a bus driver, not a "human resources specialist." You are keeping up the usual level of Roll misogyny. Some things never change. I gues snot! You got "Summa cum Laude" for THAT kind of remark?!? 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? I hadn't noticed that anyone isn't recognizing it, Lennie. No one HAS recognized your greatness. It isn't there. But you keep insisting you have it. No, Lennie, YOU did! I never mentioned my "intrinsic Greatness." What do you call your self-inflated self-praising ego trips in here? Oh, yes, "witty, insightful" thoughts. About as witty and insightful as your "snot" remark. Beeperitis. That would be an inflammation of the beeper. Is your beeper inflamed, Lennie? I recommend Preparation H! Wrong, monoxide breath. There is NO cure for Beeperitis. It is terminal and all victims are, in their last stages, trying to take everyone to an agonizing end with them. I am a BUS DRIVER, remember? Strange...you keep insisting you are a "paratransit specialist." Which is it? Suit yourself. Either one is true. I'm not a tailor. You never got a job as a Personnel person despite your many claims you could have your choice of any such job. My knowledge of communications is limited to what I've done in AMATEUR radio, and the use of my 800 MHz voice/data comm system in my bus. You've been licensed as an AMATEUR how long? And you've never bothered to find out about radio technology since you became an extra something-or-other? Twenty-two years this month, Lennie. And, yes, I have! What kind of "education?" Memorizing the ads in QST every month? Are you LAZY? Most definitely! We finally agree on something. Lennie, you're obviously in need of new reading glasses. I've never claimed to be anything but an average ham with average, AMATEUR-level technical skills. Tsk, tsk, tsk...how quickly they forget. You claimed to be in the "upper percentile of amateur radio." :-) I think that was the upper fifth percentile, IIRC. Get it right. The only "fifth" you are in is a booze bottle...dreaming fantasies of glory and greatness of self and then writing epic stories of your accomplishments in amateurism. Maybe it isn't booze. Maybe it is monoxide poisoning from being stuck in mental gridlock too long. I would classify you as little more than an ego-driven salesman type who does CB-like radio activity with a federal license grant. Aren't you supposed to be in the national pool of "trained communicators" for the nation's benefit and "advancing the state of the art" of AMATEURISM? I liked it better when you were just a Soma Come Loud student who could get any human resources job he wanted after graduation. Well, Lennie, I learned the truth the hard way. I'm not a 5'2" red head with a sexy figure, a sweet-as-honey Southern twang in my voice, and a tight little butt. My, my, you aren't? Everyone got the impression you could have any woman you wanted according to old Google archives. Whatever happened to "Natasha" of your dreams? Have a nightmare? Then again, she's collecting dust in that cubicle all day, and I'm out enjoying a paid ride in the countryside, enjoying my tunes on the stereo, helping out people who need my help to be able to live relatively normal lives. I decided a while ago that if my company has some other job for me to do, it had better be something I can do from behind the wheel of my bus! So go ahead, keep up the whining about my alleged claims of what I was going to do after graduation. That's about all you're good for around here! Google has archives. Your "alleged claims" existed in reality. No one can take you seriously. No one could. Go back to playing with your radios. Try to make a PSK31 contact or something. Or with other modes. No one really cares. shrug |
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
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 You need a micrometer, not a yard stick Larry. That's a very *small* area of exposure. The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio, the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade The more we put it in the context of reality, and remove it from the small sand box you play in, the more appropriate it becomes as a way to measure the ARS as a whole. 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. If hams and the ARS were where all the innovations in radio and communications come from, your point would be valid. But exactly the opposite is true, and what actually happens is that hams and the ARS pick up innovations, mostly from the *many* hams that do work in the industry. A perfect example of what happens when the rest of the world is closed off per your specifications is this entire concept that CW is still somehow a vital and useful mode of radio operation. Despite all of your blathering, it is not vital and it is useful virtually *only* as a hobby pastime for ham operators to enjoy if they wish. 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 Look Larry the Liar, you can't have it both ways. You've claimed that *everyone* should learn CW, because you were forced to and then you ended up enjoying it; you've claimed that your written exam was more difficult than those given today; you've claimed that your experience puts you in the top 5% of all hams. 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 So you *aren't*, by your measure, "a typical, average AMATEUR radio operator". So stop trying obfuscate your claims of being the Great Stick To Measure All of Hamdom By. 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. Yeah, they don't count... they do something you don't. 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 And that is what you like, so that is where the Stick Dips. Hmmmm... Larry, the Calibrated Dip Stick for all of the Amateur Radio Service. that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged radio amateurs. Garsh, I bet everyone of them is just *so* glad to hear about that. However, they represent a very tiny minority of the overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code Techs. You constitute the *tiniest possible* minority of the overall ham radio population: One Dip Stick. 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. So you've just demonstrated that CW doesn't have much to do with the highly technical aspects of the ARS. 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. That's an exceptionally rude insult to all Amateur Radio operators. You appear to me to be probably at about the 25%, where 3 out of 4 Extra Class hams have a broader base of experience. (Note that that *is* rather complimentary for someone who is not a professional. Now if only your ego matched your experience, you'd be a valuable ham instead of an embarrassment.) 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. And we *aren't*. That's the point. We don't think *you* should either. 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. You just did the exact same thing up above using repeaters instead of CW or PSK-31. I'm not comparing apples-to-oranges Larry, I'm just tossing one bad apple out of a barrel of apples. 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. Actually, the definition of "efficient" isn't much in debate. It's a simple measure of the percentage of the channel capacity attained. "Effective" is as you say, open to debate. In the ARS "effective" can mean does it make Larry Roll puff up with pride after a half and hour CW session, or does it take him 4 hours... Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on Dick's claims are simply ludicrous. He is spouting absolute nonsense. Everything he says is right up there with your concept of Empirical Theory. 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. That paragraph sums it up just so perfectly that you can't imagine what you've said! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: It would be if I'd said it! But YOU said it! I know better. I also know -right alaong with every active ham- that you increase SNR by *narrowing* bandwidth. Seems it gets rid of some of the noise while preserving the signal, assuming of course the signal is narrow enough to fit within the narrowed bandwidth. As it happens, a CW signal is! We were discussing how to get increase efficiency, not how to demonstrate a 0 bit error rate for the slowest possible bit rate. If narrowing the bandwidth does reduce the SNR, then you were not making effective use of the channel bandwidth to start with, and must be using a relatively inefficient mode of operation for the conditions you have chosen. On the other hand, if you are making effective use of the bandwidth, reducing it is merely going to make your communications *less* efficient by reducing the channel capacity and thus causing you to pass less information. Knowing Shannon's theories would make all of this much easier for you to understand. Here, I did put it up on my web page, so that you can download it without have to embarass yourself asking for it in email. I said it was 500K... but I'd misplaced a decimal and it is more like 5.7Mb in size. http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/techie/shannon.pdf -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: 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. That *Can't* be correct for all cases. The total noise appearing in the channel is the sum of that appearing in every Hz within the entire channel. A narrow signal such as a radiotelegraph signal may not occupy the entire width of the channel. So narrowing the channel width DOES reduce the noise while preserving the signal and improving the SNR.. Obviously where the signal is as wide as the channel this doesn't work, but in ham radio, working CW it sure does. Guaranteed. DICK, you are not discussing the efficiency of a mode. What you are arguing is the *operator's* ability to effectively use a mode. Yet you insist that you are proving something about the mode itself, rather than the operator and his equipment. If the operator is effectively utilizing the mode he has chosen, the bandwidth requirement of the mode is closely matched to the channel the operator provides. You are saying that your ineffective use of one mode compared to your more effective use of another mode proves that it was the *mode* that was more effective. All you've done is demonstrate that you don't understand the effective use of radio communications, the theory behind efficient use of the modes involved, or what you have observed. 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. Another example of why his stuff doesn't apply to the real world of ham radio. When a ham is working another station he has no control over the power that station is injecting into the channel. What he can control is the bandwidth,within limits of course. DICK, the operator can do any number of things. We should assume that just for starters the receive operator is correctly adjusting the bandwidth of the channel to match the bandwidth being transmitted. There are *many* other things that can be controlled to change the effective use of a communications channel. Your suggestion *reduces* the channel capacity rather than making it more effective. If you want more *effective* communications, either increase the data rate within the existing channel, or if it is already being used as best that a given mode can provide, increasing the channel capacity to either 1) allow a higher data rate or 2) reduce the error rate. To increase the channel capacity an operator has several choices. Asking the distant end to increase power is one possible solution. Another is to use, or adjust, an antenna to provide an increase SNR, whether by reducing noise or by increasing the signal, or both. Within ham radio such situations vary widely, but for CW the sitiation is pretty well straightforward. Hams almost always enhance CW signals by reducing the bandwidth which raises the SNR. Only if it was misadjusted to begin with. You aren't making a case for CW, you're making a case that you are a poor operator. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Floyd: Please, enlighten us. Provide a definition of the term "empirical." Your term was "Empirical Theory". Why don't *you* try to define that in terms of "empirical" and "theory". In theory at least, we should be able to empirically determine that Larry is not theorist about empiricism, but rather an empiricist. empiricist, n. -- a quack -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
That's a *very* hollow laugh, Carl. Efficiency goes way beyond anything Shannon ever described. You should know that. The word applies to far more than just what goes on within any single "channel". But you choose to ignore every bit of it save what Shannon had to say. I find that very revealing- An Information Theory fixation! I just realized---You're a Shannonist!!!! Everyone who uses a telephone, a CD player, any form of digital communications on the ham bands, a digital computer, and or many many other things... is indeed a Shannonist. The theory of communications that he set forth *is* that all pervasive. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: DICK, you are not discussing the efficiency of a mode. What you are arguing is the *operator's* ability to effectively use a mode. Gasp! Floyd, are you *finally* beginning to understand what ham radio is all about???? DICK, I've known for decades that there are hams as dumb as you! NO, Frostbite, what you've done is desmonstrate that you know virtually nothing about anything except Shannon. I happen to ALSO know how it is with ham radio! Yeah, we can tell! There are *many* other things that can be controlled to change the effective use of a communications channel. Your suggestion *reduces* the channel capacity rather than making it more effective. FLOYD, FLOYD , FLOYD!!!!! One more time----- **IN HAM RADIO WE VIRTUALLY ///NEVER/// NEED TO EMPLOY MAXIMUM CHANNEL THROUGHPUT/DATA RATE!!!*** DICK, DICK, DICK, no **** DICK. Because Shannon says that you *can't* use it. Do tell. And you actuall suppose that I and by extension most other hams don't know this? If you know anything at all DICK, it is impossible to determine so from the posts you make on Usenet. You're nuts. AND have zero experience as a ham. My experience as a ham is probably more than yours. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Shannon had written "a blueprint for the digital age," says MIT information theorist Robert Gallager, who is still awed by the 1948 paper." http://www.kjist.ac.kr/~slic/est/cshannon.pdf That's probably why Dick is so anti-Shannon and continually denies that Shannon's work has anything to do with ham radio ... Dick is scared to death that modern digital communications (that he obviously isn't capable of comprehending) will ultimately supplant his beloved Morse ... which appears to be the only thing in ham radio at which he can claim true proficiency. Simple version: Dick can't face the fact that his only "claim to fame" (as in "a legend in his own mind") is irrelevant except as a recreational activity. (NOTE: I have no problem with folks pursuing Morse as a recreational activity ... what I have a problem with is their insistence that it's "essential" to be a "Real Ham" and that a pass/fail proficiency test should forever remain a "gatekeeper" to the HF bands. Carl - wk3c |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: some snippage 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. What? You think that is a perjorative???? You, sir, are no *real* hockey puck! Oh, I don't think it is. but the gentleman saying it does. Heh, years ago I can remember going to a hockey game in Fairbanks, when the house was full, with hardly a seat left. Not a big deal, except that there were *four* hockey games going that night, and *all* of them were playing to a full house. Something like 1/4 the population of Fairbanks was taking in a hockey game that night. Now that sounds like a real blast! And I do like to get up to Canada whenever I can. Here in Alaska we tend to like our neighbors... and agree with them about folks in the Lower-48 being strange, eh! You betchya! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: NCVEC Position on Code
From: Floyd Davidson Date: 8/11/03 3:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: 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? Can you, Floyd? No, you idiot- do you come from the same village as Burke?- What I said is that we REAL HAMS have no NEED to invoke laboratory nonsense to interfere with our on the air operation! ANd they are NOT THROUGH THE SAME 31 cycle channel! They both come through the channel tha *I* set, not Shannon, which was a 2.4 kc channel which is modifiable by all those snazzy IF Sounds as if you, like Larry Roll, don't want to have anything to do with any of that "Empirical Theory" stuff of his, eh? Perhaps I remembered the previous discussion incorrectly? Were you using a 2.4 KHz channel, or a 200 Hz channel? In either case the agc, and hence SNR, are affected by the noise in that channel, not the 30Hz filter in DSP software. Only if the AGC was turned on. In many situations, reception can be improved by disabling the AGC. Old CW operator's trick. But once again, Shannon *does* apply to everything you've got there. *If* you want to actually understand it, that is the *only* way to explain it. Shannon's work sets a limit. Real world performance cannot be "better" than Shannon predicts. But it can be worse. Or you can continue to be a glorified CB operator. Have you ever actually used PSK-31, Floyd? 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. Which is good in some situations and not so good in others. 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. That depends on how "efficiency" is defined, doesn't it? If we count the power required to operate the radio and the power required to operate the laptop, PSK-31 isn't that "efficient".... Yeah, Frosty, most of us know all that, it's been well published, and quoted here for some time. But it still has no applicability to ham radio outside the theoretical. Apparently your Empirical Theory is a little sparse there DICK. Why and how do you think PSK-31 was invented to begin with? I happen to know the answer to that question. The inventor and his helpers were interested in a very narrow bandwidth "keyboard to keyboard" mode to replace Baudot RTTY. It clearly does have practical benefits, and when you attempted to use PSK-31 you *were* making use of those benefits. Of course. OOK CW has benefits, too. Yet it seems to bother some people to admit that. It is interesting to note that Larry Roll and Dick Carroll have actual experience with PSK-31, while Brian Burke, Floyd Davidson and Len Anderson have none. Yet the latter insist upon denying the experience of the former. And vice versa. Why not just use the mode you like best and have fun? If PSK-31 is so wonderful, why is it that only two of the five named have actually used it? |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Tsk, tsk, tsk...how quickly they forget. You claimed to be in the "upper percentile of amateur radio." :-) I would classify you as little more than an ego-driven salesman type who does CB-like radio activity with a federal license grant. Aren't you supposed to be in the national pool of "trained communicators" for the nation's benefit and "advancing the state of the art" of AMATEURISM? I liked it better when you were just a Soma Come Loud student who could get any human resources job he wanted after graduation. From Leonard H. Anderson: "YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them, make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so. That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis." This one is starting to come in handy already. Thanks, Len. Dave K8MN |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , Floyd Davidson writes: Floyd: Please, enlighten us. Provide a definition of the term "empirical." Your term was "Empirical Theory". Why don't *you* try to define that in terms of "empirical" and "theory". In theory at least, we should be able to empirically determine that Larry is not theorist about empiricism, but rather an empiricist. empiricist, n. -- a quack Floyd: I request meaningful participation in the debate, you respond with more name calling. Following your lead, no doubt. If I made some sort of faux pas in the use of the term "empirical theory," anyone interested in maintaining a useful discussion of the issues would have simply corrected the error, and let it go. Whine, whine, whine. You reap what you sow, Larry. However, it seems as though I've merely armed you with a straw to grasp, to be utilized whenever you can't be bothered to continue to contribute rational, logical arguments. Pot/Kettle. Since you've obviously abandoned the notion of reasoned discourse, you automatically lose. You're out of your league here, Floyd. Just like your colleague, Lennie. 73 de Larry, K3LT Pah!! You gotta be kidding. You're out on a league of one, Larry. Save for Dick, I see no one in your court. I, at least, see occasional posts in good standing from nearly everyone...gosh, except for you and Dick... Kim W5TIT |
|
"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." There are some who would say that the threshold should be more like: "Anyone who's even close to being as nasty, insulting, and intolerant as Carl shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra." I'm not one of them, but there are some who would say that. Carl, do you think that calling people dumb is going to make them want to learn things? "Anyone who would forsake any communication venue just doesn't have a clue for the value of that venue..." - Kim W5TIT "The things that upset us most are often things we see as qualities in our ownselves." - Kim W5TIT The lady's wisdom bears repeating. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Wrong, monoxide breath. There is NO cure for Beeperitis. It is terminal and all victims are, in their last stages, trying to take everyone to an agonizing end with them. What kind of "education?" Memorizing the ads in QST every month? The only "fifth" you are in is a booze bottle...dreaming fantasies of glory and greatness of self and then writing epic stories of your accomplishments in amateurism. Maybe it isn't booze. Maybe it is monoxide poisoning from being stuck in mental gridlock too long. Go back to playing with your radios. Try to make a PSK31 contact or something. Or with other modes. No one really cares. shrug "YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them, make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so. That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis." -- Leonard H. Anderson Dave K8MN |
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:26:12 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: Actually, the right compound in the right combination of water could provide quite a good amount of friction... Don't look now (ahem!), but Larry's getting all red in the face. Better stop talking about moisture and friction before he explodes. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
In article , Floyd Davidson writes: Floyd: Please, enlighten us. Provide a definition of the term "empirical." Your term was "Empirical Theory". Why don't *you* try to define that in terms of "empirical" and "theory". In theory at least, we should be able to empirically determine that Larry is not theorist about empiricism, but rather an empiricist. empiricist, n. -- a quack Floyd: I request meaningful participation in the debate, you respond with more name calling. If I made some sort of faux pas in the use of the term "empirical theory," anyone interested in maintaining a useful discussion of the issues would have simply corrected the error, and let it go. However, it seems as though I've merely armed you with a straw to grasp, to be utilized whenever you can't be bothered to continue to contribute rational, logical arguments. Since you've obviously abandoned the notion of reasoned discourse, you automatically lose. You're out of your league here, Floyd. Just like your colleague, Lennie. Larry: Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me, though that probably won't get you in anybody's league, given the above bunch of hypocracy. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
|
|
|
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: Actually, the right compound in the right combination of water could provide quite a good amount of friction... Don't look now (ahem!), but Larry's getting all red in the face. Better stop talking about moisture and friction before he explodes. John: Where Kim is concerned, no amount of moisture and friction could possibly help anyone "explode." 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
No CW Test wrote: Subject: NCVEC Position on Code From: (Brian) Date: 8/9/03 6:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: (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. He did get it going, did he not? That is the point. Only to you. Liar Burke still hasn't posted a quote showing that I said that, and he never will, for it isn't true. Not even close, no part of it. What I said is "can learn to use PSK31 in 30 minutes". That is certainly true. DICK, there are weeks and weeks of your own postings documenting your problems with PSK. Don't call me a liar and don't blame me for your own shortcomings. After all, amateur radio isn't for everyone. |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
No CW Test wrote: Subject: NCVEC Position on Code From: (Brian) Date: 8/9/03 6:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: (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. He did get it going, did he not? That is the point. Only to you. Liar Burke still hasn't posted a quote showing that I said that, and he never will, for it isn't true. Not even close, no part of it. What I said is "can learn to use PSK31 in 30 minutes". That is certainly true. DICK, there are weeks and weeks of your own postings documenting your problems with PSK, and you certainly didn't learn it in less than 30 minutes. Sorry, but continued denial only makes you the liar. Don't blame me for your inabilities and/or lack of hard work. After all, I'm told that amateur radio isn't for everyone. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: 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. David, are you living in the past? (FCC said so ... and it's up to them, not you ... :-P That's right. After all, "us" Extras have to stick together. Right? I hope not. I would expect some of them to be "forward" thinkers. |
denies that Shannon's work has anything to do with ham radio ...
Dick is scared to death that modern digital communications (that he obviously isn't capable of comprehending) will ultimately supplant his beloved Morse ... which appears to be the only thing in ham radio at which he can claim true proficiency. Simple version: Dick can't face the fact that his only "claim to fame" (as in "a legend in his own mind") is irrelevant except as a recreational activity. I don't *claim* to have a claim to fame, Carl,I'll leave that for clowns like you. I'm rather sure that I'm not the only reader here who finds it very revealing that while you and Frozen Floyd expound and glorify the virtues of an all-digital ham radio "sometime in the future"-you do continually insist that digital *is* the future-it is *I* and a few others like Larry,who actually are on the air USING advanced digital modes, along with a few which aren't so recent,like HELLSCHREIBER. ALONG WITH cw. What this shows to all is that what you actually are is all talk and no walk, Pal. Show and tell but don't ask me to do it. Yeah. Oh, yes, you did actually use a little AMTOR when you had a boat. Hey, we all gotta get our mail somehow. But you abandoned it when the boat went. Meanwhile I have to think about it a bit to add up all the digital modes I've worked *besides* CW. How about a little PACTOR, some CLOVER-not much, there just wasn't but a couple other stations that I ever caught on the air running CLOVER, but my RTTY goes back to a Teletype Corp Model 15 which was eventually replaced with a Commodore 16 (yep, 16K of ram, not a C-64)with a costly, for those days, Microlog AIR-1 module. I Followed that with a Commodore 64 and a AEA PK64 which ran several modes, really worked great on packet too, then when MS DOS took over the world I got a PK232,which I still have, along with the HAL P-38 card and a bunch of other stuff that will get traded one of these days(Heath HK232, DSP232 and a MFJ which model mumber I forget). Then came the soundcard era, and that's where things really heated up with PSK31, RTTY, HELLSCHREIBER and if I could have found anyone on the air when I was looking, I'd try MFSK-16. Meanwhile since I/we sincerely believe that radiotelegraphy is valuable to the point that new hams should be required to get just a bit of it before being allowed to forgo *any* further required actions-they won't have to ever do anything whatever with that license, if that's their bent- you and a few other like minded who were just too lame or lazy to "do it" lay out all sorts of labels and accusations toward us, not the least of which is the clearly visible, easily-identified lie about our attitudes toward digital communications. For once and for all-- **IT JUST IS NOT SO!!!!!* Facts don't budge you for a moment. OF COURSE Shannon's works are quite important and I challenge you to find where I ever suggested otherwise. But for you and Frosty to insist that Shannon controls the ARS is beyond ludicrous, and it seems that everyone reading here but you two and that idiot Anderson knows it. Oh, Don't forget the village idiot Burke. Have you actually spent any serious time trying to be a ham? Sure doesn't look like from your postings, either of you. Shannon controls nothing but explains much. Aren't you intelligent enough to understand what this does to your credibility? All this confirms just how much the old No Code hatred has consumed you. No Code International, indeed! NOTE: I have no problem with folks pursuing Morse as a recreational activity So in your view CW is the only recreational activity within the ARS. How novel. |
(Brian) wrote in message om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... No CW Test wrote: Subject: NCVEC Position on Code From: (Brian) Date: 8/9/03 6:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: (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. He did get it going, did he not? That is the point. Only to you. Liar Burke still hasn't posted a quote showing that I said that, and he never will, for it isn't true. Not even close, no part of it. What I said is "can learn to use PSK31 in 30 minutes". That is certainly true. DICK, there are weeks and weeks of your own postings documenting your problems with PSK. Don't call me a liar and don't blame me for your own shortcomings. After all, amateur radio isn't for everyone. Well you're *STILL* a liar and you're ritght-hama radio isn't for everyone. Seems you might have understood that by now, instead of just regurgitating. |
(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message om... "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... No CW Test wrote: Subject: NCVEC Position on Code From: (Brian) Date: 8/9/03 6:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: (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. He did get it going, did he not? That is the point. Only to you. Liar Burke still hasn't posted a quote showing that I said that, and he never will, for it isn't true. Not even close, no part of it. What I said is "can learn to use PSK31 in 30 minutes". That is certainly true. DICK, there are weeks and weeks of your own postings documenting your problems with PSK. Don't call me a liar and don't blame me for your own shortcomings. After all, amateur radio isn't for everyone. Well you're *STILL* a liar and you're ritght-hama radio isn't for everyone. Seems you might have understood that by now, instead of just regurgitating. DICK, I understand that you're not a nice man. |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:10 GMT, N2EY wrote: Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an effect? The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. Not the point. How big of a problem do we have with hams using CW straying outdie the band edges at any time? Compare that to problems with hams using voice modes and jamming, cussing, failing to ID, etc. Yes, the op is ultimately responsible, that's a given. But the fact remains that there are orders of magnitude difference in violations... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com