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 , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


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?

Lennie:

I understand it just fine, thank you. However, my "understanding" will
never measure up to your standards, so I will just have to live with that.
Too bad you can't!

Larrah, you don't even measure up to YOUR standards... :-)


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.

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.

You are keeping up the usual level of Roll misogyny. Some things
never change.


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.

Beeperitis.



I am a BUS DRIVER, remember?

Strange...you keep insisting you are a "paratransit specialist."

Which is it?


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?

Are you LAZY?


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 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.

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)