|
"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 , "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 |
|
|
"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? |
(Brian) wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote: 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? "... what I said- Shannon and his little mathematical circus really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham radio." He certainly ought to deny some of his statements! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com