Robert Casey wrote:
WA8ULX wrote:

Do you guys dream about morse code tests?





Look lid you still dont get it, I am well aware the CW test is gone, my
complaint still is the Give away Written.

So why are we all not extras, then? If the writtens are so easy?

For many people, those tests are *not* that easy. For me they were, but
I had plenty of experience. It was still a week of fairly intense study.

Can the tests be passed with one of these weekend classes? Probably.
Just like college students do all-night cramming for their tests. You
pass the test, then quickly forget about it. They cheat themselves.

Short of essay questions, with the grader making an often arbitrary
right or wrong judgement on anything that isn't a numerical answer, we
are stuck with multiple choice. It's the worst system, except for all
the others.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Radio is but a small part of electrical engineering, and it keeps getting
smaller as other technologies come along. Heck, the hot subject in
communications today is fiber optics - which works by on-off keying!

While it is true that fiber technology today is digitally based, fiber
can actually be used for an analog transmisison function if someone
wanted to.

Of course!

But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic communications is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote



But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic communications
is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

Jim, your credibility is fast evaporating!!!!!! This is the most wildly
stretched and tortured analogy to hit rrap since FOREVER! Next you'll tell
us that ...... aw never mind, I can't even read your stuff with a straight
face anymore. You're funnier than Masatoka whatever-his-name-was. I think
you must have done multiple sessions of boko-maru with him.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote



But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic communications
is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

Jim, your credibility is fast evaporating!!!!!! This is the most wildly
stretched and tortured analogy to hit rrap since FOREVER!

How so?

The old original landwire telegraph used a single (usually iron) wire and
on-off keying of an electric current. Fiber optics uses a glass fiber and
on-off keying of an beam of light, usually from a laser. Both sent messages by
time-domain multiplexing.

Next you'll tell
us that ...... aw never mind, I can't even read your stuff with a straight
face anymore. You're funnier than Masatoka whatever-his-name-was.

"Are you not entertained??? Is this not what you came here for??"*

I think
you must have done multiple sessions of boko-maru with him.

Aw, now you're getting insulting....

Be well.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* pop culture reference: Maximus to the crowd in the film "Gladiator"

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote



But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic
communications
is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

Jim, your credibility is fast evaporating!!!!!! This is the most wildly
stretched and tortured analogy to hit rrap since FOREVER!

How so?

The old original landwire telegraph used a single (usually iron) wire and
on-off keying of an electric current. Fiber optics uses a glass fiber and
on-off keying of an beam of light, usually from a laser. Both sent
messages by
time-domain multiplexing.

Actually, in really high speed optical equipment it is both
time domain and wavelengths/frequency (sometimes called color) domains.
There is equipment out there that operates at 1.6 Terrabits/sec.

Cheers,
Bill

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote



But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic
communications
is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

Jim, your credibility is fast evaporating!!!!!! This is the most wildly
stretched and tortured analogy to hit rrap since FOREVER!

How so?

The old original landwire telegraph used a single (usually iron) wire and
on-off keying of an electric current. Fiber optics uses a glass fiber and
on-off keying of an beam of light, usually from a laser. Both sent
messages by
time-domain multiplexing.

Actually, in really high speed optical equipment it is both
time domain and wavelengths/frequency (sometimes called color) domains.

Multiple "carriers" (different light wavelengths) on the same fiber,
right? Kinda like multiple telegraph carriers of old.

But isn't the basic modulation scheme still on-off keying of the
light, rather than shifting its color or phase?

There is equipment out there that operates at 1.6 Terrabits/sec.

lessee...10^12 bits/second...that's more than all of the RF spectrum
normally used for radio, right? And that's through *one* fiber that's
immune to EM fields, weather, ionospheric and tropospheric
propagation, EMI and almost everything else except shovels.

Now that's cool.

But it does have a downside. It permits a significant number of US
jobs to be outsourced to places like India (or anywhere else that has
a significant English-speaking population).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote



But in fact, the mode used in practically all fiber optic
communications
is
simple on-off keying of a "carrier".

Very similar, in fact, to landwire telegraph practice, speeded up
and
automated, and using photons instead of electrons.

Jim, your credibility is fast evaporating!!!!!! This is the most
wildly
stretched and tortured analogy to hit rrap since FOREVER!

How so?

The old original landwire telegraph used a single (usually iron) wire
and
on-off keying of an electric current. Fiber optics uses a glass fiber
and
on-off keying of an beam of light, usually from a laser. Both sent
messages by
time-domain multiplexing.

Actually, in really high speed optical equipment it is both
time domain and wavelengths/frequency (sometimes called color) domains.

Multiple "carriers" (different light wavelengths) on the same fiber,
right? Kinda like multiple telegraph carriers of old.

But isn't the basic modulation scheme still on-off keying of the
light, rather than shifting its color or phase?

Yes. I wasn't disputing that point, just noting that the on/off time domain
muxing isn't the only way that increased data rates are obtained.

There is equipment out there that operates at 1.6 Terrabits/sec.

lessee...10^12 bits/second...that's more than all of the RF spectrum
normally used for radio, right? And that's through *one* fiber that's
immune to EM fields, weather, ionospheric and tropospheric
propagation, EMI and almost everything else except shovels.

Now that's cool.

But it does have a downside. It permits a significant number of US
jobs to be outsourced to places like India (or anywhere else that has
a significant English-speaking population).

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?


No.. but how will we all pay for new toys if we are on the bread lines or
slicing baloney at Stop & Shop for a living ?

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

Actually, in really high speed optical equipment it is both
time domain and wavelengths/frequency (sometimes called color) domains.

Multiple "carriers" (different light wavelengths) on the same fiber,
right? Kinda like multiple telegraph carriers of old.

But isn't the basic modulation scheme still on-off keying of the
light, rather than shifting its color or phase?

Yes. I wasn't disputing that point, just noting that the on/off time domain
muxing isn't the only way that increased data rates are obtained.

Agreed. Just like containerized shipping has revolutionized freight
transportation, fiber optics has revolutionized communications.

There is equipment out there that operates at 1.6 Terrabits/sec.

lessee...10^12 bits/second...that's more than all of the RF spectrum
normally used for radio, right? And that's through *one* fiber that's
immune to EM fields, weather, ionospheric and tropospheric
propagation, EMI and almost everything else except shovels.

Now that's cool.

But it does have a downside. It permits a significant number of US
jobs to be outsourced to places like India (or anywhere else that has
a significant English-speaking population).

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?

Not at all - but I'd rather have it that the downsides be explored more
thoroughly *before* they occur.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?


No.. but how will we all pay for new toys if we are on the bread lines or
slicing baloney at Stop & Shop for a living ?

The point is that any industry is always at risk. There is no
guarnteed life expectancy for almost any endeaver. The PC has
knocked down the number of secretaries needed to support
engineering groups. The auto all but eliminated blacksmiths.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

SNIP

There is equipment out there that operates at 1.6 Terrabits/sec.

lessee...10^12 bits/second...that's more than all of the RF spectrum
normally used for radio, right? And that's through *one* fiber that's
immune to EM fields, weather, ionospheric and tropospheric
propagation, EMI and almost everything else except shovels.

Now that's cool.

But it does have a downside. It permits a significant number of US
jobs to be outsourced to places like India (or anywhere else that has
a significant English-speaking population).

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?

Not at all - but I'd rather have it that the downsides be explored more
thoroughly *before* they occur.

Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:


Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

You mean like............DDT? Thalidomide?


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...

New technology almost always has a downside for some group or groups.
Would you rather such advances not become reality?


No.. but how will we all pay for new toys if we are on the bread lines
or
slicing baloney at Stop & Shop for a living ?

The point is that any industry is always at risk. There is no
guarnteed life expectancy for almost any endeaver. The PC has
knocked down the number of secretaries needed to support
engineering groups. The auto all but eliminated blacksmiths.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

But each also created new work. If the worker was smart enough to see it
coming, they started preparing for the new application before it totally
killed off the old. We may not have blacksmiths but the body shops keep
pretty busy.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:20:47 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

Consider the consequemces if they don't.

I had the eyesight in one eye restored with an experimental
medication used in a very high tech procedure that was Phase 2 of a
study for FDA procedure approval. If the company that manufactured
the medication and proposed the procedure had not been required to
do Phase 1 (medication safety test) or indeed the entire approval
study first, what would have happened had the medication not proved
safe to use in the first place (permanent blindness, I was told).

In our field, consider the effects of headlong approval of BPL on
spectrum usability. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

Yes, Bill, I am 100% in favor of defining and eliminating or at least
guarding against the downsides before running off to market a la
Micro$**t Windows junk.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:16:15 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

The point is that any industry is always at risk. There is no
guarnteed life expectancy for almost any endeaver. The PC has
knocked down the number of secretaries needed to support
engineering groups.

And created an equal demand for CAD operators who also replaced
drafters.

The auto all but eliminated blacksmiths.

And created an equal demand for "mechanics" who today are called
"technicians".

Same folks doing the same work......

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Bill Sohl wrote:


Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

You mean like............DDT? Thalidomide?

The "negative impacts" I mentioned were not intented to include
health or life threatening side effects. The discussion has been around
"negative
impacts" in the area of job displaceents and/or industries failing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:20:47 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

Consider the consequemces if they don't.

I had the eyesight in one eye restored with an experimental
medication used in a very high tech procedure that was Phase 2 of a
study for FDA procedure approval. If the company that manufactured
the medication and proposed the procedure had not been required to
do Phase 1 (medication safety test) or indeed the entire approval
study first, what would have happened had the medication not proved
safe to use in the first place (permanent blindness, I was told).

In our field, consider the effects of headlong approval of BPL on
spectrum usability. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

Yes, Bill, I am 100% in favor of defining and eliminating or at least
guarding against the downsides before running off to market a la
Micro$**t Windows junk.

The discussion has been on the economic downsides (jobs lost, industries
driven out of existence), not on bonafide health, life, or illegal
interference issues.

Another example. Would you have held back on digital photography
because it is negatively impacting the print film camera industry?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:16:15 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

The point is that any industry is always at risk. There is no
guarnteed life expectancy for almost any endeaver. The PC has
knocked down the number of secretaries needed to support
engineering groups.

And created an equal demand for CAD operators who also replaced
drafters.

I don't think it's an equal demand. In most cases, a good CAD op can turn out
the same work faster than an equally skilled manual drafter. This is
particularly true if an existing drawing can be modified rather than drawing
from scratch.

When I started in the design office at (undisclosed former employer), all work
was by hand drafting. Now, in that industry, it is all CAD work - even to the
point that the old linen tracings are usually scanned and treated as CAD files.


And that's for plain old 2D electrical/electronic stuff. The mechanical and
architectural folks are the big shots in that department.

The auto all but eliminated blacksmiths.

And created an equal demand for "mechanics" who today are called
"technicians".

Which title they deserve, considering the level of technology they have to take
care of.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:24:40 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

Another example. Would you have held back on digital photography
because it is negatively impacting the print film camera industry?

Not when the leaders in the print film camera industry are some of
the heavy hitters in the digital photography industry.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:


Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

You mean like............DDT? Thalidomide?

The "negative impacts" I mentioned were not intented to include
health or life threatening side effects. The discussion has been around
"negative
impacts" in the area of job displaceents and/or industries failing.


Losing one's job and not being able to find another can have serious health and
life-threatening side effects.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:

Because people are not specific. Look at thread
subject lines like "drop the code" or "IARU says
drop Morse". And there's a group what goes by
the name "No-Code International" - not "No
Code TEST International".

All writers assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of their
target readers. The same is true for this newsgroup. Most here are aware of
the code testing debate, so there isn't any reason to restate the issue each
time something is said. As for NCI, the names of many groups don't exactly
reflect the group's publicly stated goals. For example, the Red Cross
doesn't go around painting crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight
religious wars.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

The the American Radio Relay League really doesn't
anymore....They're just the "ARRL".

Rick Tannehill - W7RT

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight wrote:

For example, the Red Cross doesn't go around painting
crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.

But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

Dwight wrote:
For example, the Red Cross doesn't go
around painting crosses red and the
Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.


Is this message (mine) just now showing up in the newsgroup for people to
reply to? I posted it many days ago.

Did anyone hear the story on Fox several nights ago about the Red Cross in
England planning to drop the red cross as their official logo? According to
the story, they want to eliminate any reference to religion. I don't know if
they intend to change the name also. The story said the U.S. chapter insists
it has no intention of doing the same. Anyway, since the red cross logo is
widely used outside religious circles (hospitals and so on) and I suspect
few make a religious connection, I thought the entire thing was a little
strange.


But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?


No department stores in the oceans to collect money at? It's too cold to
stand around at piers during the Christmas season? On a more technical note,
their ringing bells were mistaken for navigation buoys once too often? ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

Dwight wrote:

For example, the Red Cross doesn't go around painting
crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.

But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?

Because they'd always be trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:
Dwight wrote:


For example, the Red Cross doesn't go around painting
crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.


But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?

Navy deals out something other than salvation! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

For example, the Red Cross doesn't go around painting
crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.

But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?

...there is no salvation in the navy...

LHA

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:
(Len Over 21) wrote:
"KØHB" writes:

But why the hell isn't there a Salvation Navy?

...there is no salvation in the navy...

Tell that to a Navy Chaplain.


I don't think he was refering to the religious context of the word.
Instead, I suspect he was referring to "saving someone from an unpleasant
situation." The "unpleasent situation" in this case being the Navy itself.
Now, before someone jumps on me, let me point out that I'm only explaining
what I think he's saying. I have no desire to engage in inter-service
rivalries.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/