"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Dick, your technical ignorance is showing TWOFOLD.

First, Floyd said "the SNR and get more channel capacity


regardless of the bandwidth" ... which is clearly true.


Second, you said "When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth? I knew you has your head on bassackwards."

You certainly CAN increase SNR by narrowing the bandwidth.



Which is EXACTLY the meaning of what I said in question form!
Uh, Carl, where'd you learn to read?

Where did you learn to communicate?

If you increase the SNR by decreasing the bandwidth, you *don't*
get any increase in the channel capacity. What have you gained?

Nothing...

On the other hand, if you increase the SNR by leaving the
bandwidth as it is, and increase the signal level, you get more
capacity!

You don't think that "bandwidth is central" when you can increase
SNR by narrowing bandwidth? What physics do you and Frosty practice?

Try physics that actually accomplish something. What you are
suggesting has no effect on channel capacity.

Surely not the same that ALL hams do. Narrowing the bandwidth to eliminate
noise and other interference IS the most common way to get it done, for
darn
sure within ham radio.

It also reduces the channel capacity. At 500 Hz, with CW, you
are limited to what? 40 wpm or so for a good CW operator.

But with a 2.1 KHz bandwidth they could use SSB, for example,
and transfer *many* *many* times more information.

By *your* methods of comparision, you've just proven that SSB is
more efficient than CW.

(Of course, using your methods we could "prove" almost
anything!)

Since noise is essentially constant across the spectrum,


No, it isn't, although I understand the concept of assuming it to be so
for any
reasonably narrow slice of spectrum under consideration.


it can
be measured in noise power per unit bandwidth (noise power/Hz).
Thus, in a 1 kHz bandwidth, there will be 1000x more noise
power (30 log 10) than in a 1 Hz bandwidth. Thus, the noise floor
is lower in narrower bandwidths.

What part of this don't you get?


Where'd you get the idea that I don't get this???

That's EXACTlY what I said when I asked

"When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth?"

The answer is: you get no change in the channel capacity.

(How did you pass the Extra test
anyway???)



I'm beginning to wonder how you made it out of elementary school

I sure passed it long, long, long, long before you did, and at the FCC
district office!
Didn't miss a single question, either- you watch the grader's pencil
hand to see how many
check marks he/she makes. In my case it was none.

Yes, and here you are years later *proving* that none of that
was accomplishing a darned thing, because obviously *you* passed
so it can't have been working correctly. That's exactly why
none of that is now required.

If you and your other buddy with limited or NO amateur radio experience
had spent some time on the CW bands WORKING CW instead of bitching about

I'll bet that I have more time actually copying CW than you do!

the code test maybe you'd know some of this stuff without having to
resort to
an obscure theory that isn't even mentioned until third year of a
college EE program,
never appeared ANYWHERE in the amateur radio technical literature until
recently,
and only briefly in electrical engineering handbooks. You're absolutely
FIXATED on
insisting that all hams MUST have engineering level; knowledge and
experience in
manipulating Information Theory at the laboratory level.

Hmmm... you mean hams are that ignorant as a rule???

I don't believe you. I think it's just you and Larry.

What a load of Bull****! ALL of radio got along quite well for a half
century before
Shannon ever thought it up, and after he did there was virtually no use
for it until the advent
of DSP chips.

More of your ignorance. As I've pointed out previously, the
entire direction of communications technology switched gears
immediately after Shannon published his works. DSP chips were a
*result* of Shannon's work, not something that enabled Shannon.

So why don't you join Frosty out on the tundra and do a ritual dance to
celebrate Shannon
and all his math?


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.

And I didn't have to give Shannon a single thought.

With no brain to use for thinking, how could you have?

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