|
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) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com