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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is another compliment.

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