| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
We Need a BANDWIDTH-BASED Frequency Plan - NOT Mode-Based.
==WE NEED A BANDWIDTH-BASED FREQUENCY PLAN==
FOR THE FUTURE OF AMATEUR RADIO Bravo! for the new ARRL proposal in the works for code-free license restructuring. It is long overdue, and it is a great step forward! ARRL: Thank you for all your work... Please consider that, due to recent radio technology and the proposed changes to licensing structure, we desperately need a better frequency plan than the olde "Novice Refarming Proposal" from the 1990s that was pulled off a dusty shelf. Instead, we need a "Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan" for the next decade or more. DIGITAL MODULATION IS THE FUTURE Digital modulation and processing is changing the way we communicate and coexist in the HF frequency spectrum. With the multitude of new digital and analog modulation schemes, including "digital voice", there are compelling reasons to integrate voice, CW, data, image, and keyboarding "modes". Hams want to be able to use existing technology to simultaneously keyboard, exchange multimedia files, and talk by voice with each other on the same frequency... something our present rules prevent on HF. MODE IS NO LONGER A VALID DEFINITION Due to technology changes, the old definitions of what a "mode" is are now blurred beyond recognition. Existing band/mode rules are stifling creativity. ARE WE NOT COMMUNICATORS? One example of how our present plan stifles communication is by keeping USA amateurs segregated and actually preventing us from communicating with the rest of the world on the 40 and 80/75 meter bands. Hams want to be able to communicate via voice internationally on the 40m and 80m ham bands. HF FREQUENCY PLAN BY EMISSION BANDWIDTH - NOT MODE If we are to continue to advance amateur radio into the future, we need MODE FLEXIBILITY. Otherwise, we will be faced with the need to be constantly generating new proposals to the FCC to accomodate new technology. The simplest and best way to solve this problem is to divide the HF bands according to "emission bandwidth" for better distribution of spectrum activity. This will not only encourage new research and development in modulation techniques, but it will help amateurs to communicate with each other by breaking down the frequency/mode/band barriers which have confounded us on some bands for the past 40 years. Here is a better HF Frequency Plan for Amateur Radio in USA. MODE-BASED HF FREQUENCY PLAN USA kHz 1800 to 2000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 1830 to 2000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 3500 to 4000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 3600 to 4000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 5MHz channels - mode 2.8kHz bandwidth 7000 to 7300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 7075 to 7300 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 10100 to 10150 any mode 500kHz bandwidth 10115 to 10150 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 14000 to 14300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 14075 to 14350 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 18068 to 18168 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 18080 to 18168 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 21000 to 21450 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 21100 to 21450 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 21350 to 21450 any mode 10kHz bandwidth 24890 to 24990 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 28000 to 29700 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 28100 to 29700 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 28600 to 29700 any mode 10kHz bandwidth NEW AMATEUR EXTRA - ALL FREQUENCIES - ALL BANDS. "NEW GENERAL" and "NEW NOVICE" BANDS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING FREQUENCY PLAN: kHz 1800 to 2000 GENERAL 3510 to 3600 GENERAL AND NOVICE 3650 to 4000 GENERAL 3700 to 4000 NOVICE 5MHz channels GENERAL 7010 to 7075 GENERAL 7025 to 7075 NOVICE 7100 to 7300 GENERAL 7150 to 7300 NOVICE 10100 to 10150 GENERAL 14010 to 14075 GENERAL 14025 to 14075 NOVICE 14150 to 14350 GENERAL 14250 to 14350 NOVICE 18068 to 18168 GENERAL, NOVICE 21010 to 21100 GENERAL, NOVICE 21100 to 21450 GENERAL 21250 to 21450 NOVICE 24890 to 24990 GENERAL, NOVICE 28000 to 29700 GENERAL, NOVICE BY YEAR 2010, 30% OF ALL HAMS WILL BE NOVICE OPERATORS Under the new ARRL proposed license restructuring plan, the number of amateur radio operators on HF will increase dramatically. This is good. We need this to preserve our frequency allocations. We will see a vast increase in the number of "New Novices". The new Novice operators will be valuable emergency communicators, so we need to make room in our bands for them to communicate. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA ARRL Member .. |
Bonnie, KQ6XA, posted:
==WE NEED A BANDWIDTH-BASED FREQUENCY PLAN== deletia 1830 to 2000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 3600 to 4000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 7075 to 7300 any mode 3kHz bandwidth |
|
|
|
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Imagine a mode that is a combination of PSK-31 and SSB voice, with the PSK carrier where the SSB carrier would be. Send data and voice at the same time. Interesting? Yes! Possible? Of course! Legal? No. After reassessing the idea in these terms, I stand corrected. I have changed my mind. This DOES make more sense. Only if it's done right! I have 52 DXCC entities on 75m phone and 87 on CW. I have 85 DXCC entities on 40m phone. I am two shy of DXCC on 40m CW. Not bad for low power and wire antennas close to the ground. dayum! Tain't nuttin...My best friend (K4YJ) has numerous single-band DXCC, WAZ, 5BWAZ, etc, with nothing mroe than the driven element of an old butterfly beam in the attic of his townhouse in suburban Atlanta. I thought I was doing pretty good till the shoeboxes full of QSL's at his shack fell on me! =) Gotta get me one o' them K4Yx calls... HF FREQUENCY PLAN BY EMISSION BANDWIDTH - NOT MODE If we are to continue to advance amateur radio into the future, we need MODE FLEXIBILITY. After one reads through this post they will see that ALL you suggest, in the end, is dropping specific modes by name. The result, however, is just an expansion of the U.S. phone bands. It gets worse... Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we can afford to expand our phone allocations. However YOUR premise is that we enact your ideas to deter "stifling" of experimentation. I say widening the 'phone bands as much as is suggested is not a good thing at all. In the long run, you're wedging more efficient narrowband modes into smaller and smaller subbands to the preference of the less efficient wideband modes...Specifically, SSB voice. Bingo. Otherwise, we will be faced with the need to be constantly generating new proposals to the FCC to accomodate new technology. The simplest and best way to solve this problem is to divide the HF bands according to "emission bandwidth" for better distribution of spectrum activity. This will not only encourage new research and development in modulation techniques, but it will help amateurs to communicate with each other by breaking down the frequency/mode/band barriers which have confounded us on some bands for the past 40 years. All you've done is change the language. The application will be unchanged. Sort of. As I said, I've changed my mind. This is a good idea. Only if it's done so as to not simply crush the CW/digital folks under a wave of SSB. The basic concept proposed is OK, the implementation is awful. 5MHz channels - mode 2.8kHz bandwidth No change here. This is exactly what we have right now. No it isn't! We're allowed USB voice *only* - nothing else - because NTIA says so. And that's all they're likely to say, unless there is a proposal put forth that makes it more efficient to do so. Too soon to do that. We've had 60 m for how long? How many hams use 60? My idea for 60 meters? Limit ALL Amateur access to this band to persons participating in ARES, RACES or other RECOGNIZED emergency service organization or agency. This would include drills and nets of both Amateur and non-Amateur organizations for practice purposes. That's a step backwards. Would generate less interest in the band. Takes steps to enact NTIA regulation changes to make this the defacto liasion band between disaster relief agencies, both civil and military. Possible. In any event, we'd have to match their modes! The band here is only 50kHz wide to start with, yet you suggest we allow phone operations to take up 80% of the band which means fewer stations on the band at the same time. How is that an improvement? It isn't. And I thought it was just me! =) It isn't. 24890 to 24990 any mode 3kHz bandwidth Why no protection for narrowband modes? PSK, AMTOR, RTTY, and yes...CW. One guess why CW isn't mentioned... =) Do I get THREE guesses...?!?! Do you need more than one? ;-) There's more to it than that, Steve, but the proposed solution creates more problems than it solves. I really do hope we get lots of newcomers, but 30% Novices in 6 years is kinda optimistic. Waaaaaaaaaaaay optimistic, I'd say...Hopeful, but optimistic. Let's be wildly optimistic and say the proposal results in 40,000 newcomers per year. Let's also say that each year 30,000 (about 4%) of those licensed today drop out. Then in six years we'll have 60,000 more hams than today - about 744,000. Of these, 240,000 will have joined in the intervening 6 years. That's about 30% - but *only* if none of the newcomers comes in as anything but a Novice, and *only* if not one of them upgrades! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is
no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed with suggestions and constructive criticism during the development of the plan. The article and band chart is now on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ 73---Bonnie KQ6XA |
(Expeditionradio) wrote in message ...
An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, *IF* the FCC buys into anything like the recent ARRL proposal AND drops anything vaguely resembling that proposal on Hamdom USA MAYBE the number of individuals licensed to actually get on HF MIGHT double. All of which is pure conjecture right there and is a real stretch at best. What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. The problem with HF ham radio, if there really is a problem, has nothing to do with whimsical "bandplans" like yours, "we need space . .. sombody might eventually do some 10Khz wide digital voice modes" or any of the rest of it. The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed with suggestions and constructive criticism during the development of the plan. .. . . no problem, you're welcome . . The article and band chart is now on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ 73---Bonnie KQ6XA Brian w3rv |
|
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (Expeditionradio) wrote in message ... An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. IOW the 'phone bands are drastically widened and the CW/digital bands drastically narrowed. Also, the incentives to upgrade are reduced, the spectrum available for modes wider than SSB is reduced. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. No, it isn't. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, *IF* the FCC buys into anything like the recent ARRL proposal AND drops anything vaguely resembling that proposal on Hamdom USA MAYBE the number of individuals licensed to actually get on HF MIGHT double. All of which is pure conjecture right there and is a real stretch at best. More like wildly optimistic. We currently have about 324,000 US hams with General, Advanced or Extra class licenses. Also at least 130,000 with Novice, TechPlus and "Tech-with-HF" licenses. If even a small percentage of them were on HF at any one time, the bands would be full to busting. What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. When was spectrum ever "wasted"? Is that why AM is so restricted in this plan? The problem with HF ham radio, if there really is a problem, has nothing to do with whimsical "bandplans" like yours, "we need space . . sombody might eventually do some 10Khz wide digital voice modes" or any of the rest of it. The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. Right: I haven't rummaged thru it in real depth and I don't intend to but I'll just betcha there are more similar instances of conflicts with the ITU regs. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. I poked around, she's apparently big on "pack radio", using digital military HF "tactical" gear is one piece of it. She doesn't seem to understand the collections of "differences" . . ? Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? Is it even possible to compress digitized voice down to 500Hz? Violation of Shannon's Law? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? There really are a bunch of underutilized spaces in the 160, 80, 15 & 10M bands James. "Spectrum banks for future expansions . . " What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. If anything the ratio will get worse. I've seen too many examples of new-wave 5wpm ex-Tech Extras who have yet to make the first move toward putting an HF station on the air to believe otherwise. I'm not at all convinced that expanded HF privs is all that much of an incentive to upgrade these days vs. earlier days. Prolly has more to do today with the incentive to acquire bragging rights vs. anything to do with actually operating. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. It's all one disgusting big dumbed-down bag of worms. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. I'm talking about the much longer term thru the highs and the lows. In years gone by there was always chatter in the Extra phone setasides, not with just sunspot-affected dx, but with."locals". After the last FD I decided to dredge up a ragchew in the 20 phone setaside before I tore down. Usta be no sweat. I had to tune around for ten minutes until w3bv came on the air and we yakked for 45 minutes via ground path.. Mid day, the spots were middling and the dx was there. The only w's in the space were a small group of 8s & 9s and Alan (keeper of the k3jh pole) and I. All of us were old 1 x 2s. Message there. . . The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. Perfect example of the results of dumbing-down. Bonnie also dumped her Master Plan into QRZ.com. Bad move. Those guys make us RRAPers look like wilted lilly nice guys in comparison. Check it out. I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal. Whatta weenie SHE is. "Glory hound shoots self in foot." 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. Right: I haven't rummaged thru it in real depth and I don't intend to but I'll just betcha there are more similar instances of conflicts with the ITU regs. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. I poked around, she's apparently big on "pack radio", using digital military HF "tactical" gear is one piece of it. She doesn't seem to understand the collections of "differences" . . ? Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? Is it even possible to compress digitized voice down to 500Hz? Violation of Shannon's Law? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? There really are a bunch of underutilized spaces in the 160, 80, 15 & 10M bands James. "Spectrum banks for future expansions . . " What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. If anything the ratio will get worse. I've seen too many examples of new-wave 5wpm ex-Tech Extras who have yet to make the first move toward putting an HF station on the air to believe otherwise. I'm not at all convinced that expanded HF privs is all that much of an incentive to upgrade these days vs. earlier days. Prolly has more to do today with the incentive to acquire bragging rights vs. anything to do with actually operating. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. It's all one disgusting big dumbed-down bag of worms. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. I'm talking about the much longer term thru the highs and the lows. In years gone by there was always chatter in the Extra phone setasides, not with just sunspot-affected dx, but with."locals". After the last FD I decided to dredge up a ragchew in the 20 phone setaside before I tore down. Usta be no sweat. I had to tune around for ten minutes until w3bv came on the air and we yakked for 45 minutes via ground path.. Mid day, the spots were middling and the dx was there. The only w's in the space were a small group of 8s & 9s and Alan (keeper of the k3jh pole) and I. All of us were old 1 x 2s. Message there. . . The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. Perfect example of the results of dumbing-down. Bonnie also dumped her Master Plan into QRZ.com. Bad move. Those guys make us RRAPers look like wilted lilly nice guys in comparison. Check it out. I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal. Whatta weenie SHE is. "Glory hound shoots self in foot." 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. The problem with "new modes" has nothing to do with the regs, allowable bandwidths or any of the rest of the usual micro-managed "grand plans". It's a MARKETING problem, pure and simple. You go dude! I ain't buying no dayum Yugo! So...where ya been...?!?! Keeping a lower profile. I've run a bit short of patience with this funny farm. 73 Steve, K4YZ Brian w3rv |
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... (Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. Smoking isn't good for you. You ought to quit. The problem with "new modes" has nothing to do with the regs, allowable bandwidths or any of the rest of the usual micro-managed "grand plans". It's a MARKETING problem, pure and simple. You go dude! I ain't buying no dayum Yugo! Yugos have built-in ham transceivers? The automotive forums are way over to the right on the first floor. Go there. You can't miss it. So...where ya been...?!?! Keeping a lower profile. I've run a bit short of patience with this funny farm. Awwww. You mean there's no more Tales of the South Pacific and your shooting bears from a carrier? No steam left in your catapult? We are all desolate... LHA / WMD |
(Len Over 21) wrote in
: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message e.com... (Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. The original research paper on that particular topic was actually published in 1945. I have a copy of it somewhere... Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. Smoking isn't good for you. You ought to quit. The problem with "new modes" has nothing to do with the regs, allowable bandwidths or any of the rest of the usual micro-managed "grand plans". It's a MARKETING problem, pure and simple. You go dude! I ain't buying no dayum Yugo! Yugos have built-in ham transceivers? The automotive forums are way over to the right on the first floor. Go there. You can't miss it. So...where ya been...?!?! Keeping a lower profile. I've run a bit short of patience with this funny farm. Awwww. You mean there's no more Tales of the South Pacific and your shooting bears from a carrier? No steam left in your catapult? We are all desolate... LHA / WMD |
In article , Alun
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message le.com... (Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. The original research paper on that particular topic was actually published in 1945. I have a copy of it somewhere... No doubt something was done back then. A former RAF boffin named Clarke would have his geosychronous 3-satellite comm proposal published in Wireless World a couple years later. I was fortunate to read an original W.W. issue with that article. Right now ALL of the geosynchronous orbit positions are taken... :-) Mike Gingell did his PhD thesis on the polyphase network (the four- phase version, not to be confused with other "polyphase" networks) in the UK. I have a copy of that courtesy of a UK amateur. Several picked up on that thesis in the UK and Martinez' version was printed in Radio Communication magazine some time in 1973. My boss at RCA (Jim Hall, KD6JG) showed me that and it looked fascinating. I snitched some corporate computer time and analyzed it in LECAP, the RCA frequency-domain version of ECAP. I sent the results to Pat Hawker whose column ran the polyphase stuff and that was published in 1974 in Radio Communication. Jim Hall is one of the "third-method" SSB innovators and his paper done at RCA remains as a footnote mention in the "Collins SSB book" although the authors got the third-method system descriptions mixed up. Several in Yurp have used the Gingell values with success for SSB, including direct-conversion versions. One of Dan Tayloe's QRP receivers (D-C) uses that. A Japanese amateur surnamed Yoshida refined the values for even less quadrature phase error and that was published in QEX. The Gingell-Yoshida value set is most forgiving of component tolerances yet providing excellent very low error quadrature phasing across the audio voice band. Mike Gingell moved the USA and got a U.S. amateur license, was living in an eastern state and was interested in satellite reception according to his personal website. It's now 31 years later and most U.S. amateurs are ignorant of the Gingell circuit or haven't looked into it...most preferring to operate their ready-built, designed-by-commercial-engineers equipment. The (Gingell) polyphase circuit has also been the subject of papers in the IEEE Transactions on Communications in the late 1970s and 1980s for applications other than SSB. The basic PLL circuit was first described in 1932 (!) by France's H. de Bellescize but it doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to the modern PLLs using specialty ICs such as an MC145151. :-) All things are as they were then except for some profound changes. LHA / WMD |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... (Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) When did a 31 Hz wide mode become "wideband"? Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? I musta missed this one too, when did the FCC start passing out Extras to Brits?? He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. (a) When did bench-futzing SSB transmitter circuitry have anything to do with putting a wideband signal on the air? (b) When did SSB become "wideband"? (c) You might note that phasing schemes for generating ssb signals have about as much applicability to ham radio today as you have ever had. Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. Smoking isn't good for you. You ought to quit. The problem with "new modes" has nothing to do with the regs, allowable bandwidths or any of the rest of the usual micro-managed "grand plans". It's a MARKETING problem, pure and simple. You go dude! I ain't buying no dayum Yugo! Yugos have built-in ham transceivers? The automotive forums are way over to the right on the first floor. Go there. You can't miss it. So...where ya been...?!?! Keeping a lower profile. I've run a bit short of patience with this funny farm. Awwww. You mean there's no more Tales of the South Pacific and your shooting bears from a carrier? No steam left in your catapult? We are all desolate... Goofy Putz. LHA / WMD |
|
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... (Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... There's virtually NO new-mode experimentation going on anywhere in any ham bands. We have high bands where all sorts of "multimedia" wideband ops are already quite legal. But all we hear is the talk, the walk simply isn't happening. Why would it be any different on the HF bands?? Usually this mantra pops up by some of the no code faction who has tried to promote the idea that "experimenters" in new mode technologies would somehow come out of the woodwork IF there was no code test to keep them off of 20M phone. Go figure! It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) When did a 31 Hz wide mode become "wideband"? Martinez' innovation comes from scaling current wideband data communications at high rates to the slow, real-time rates of amateur radio environments. That involved some good application of Information Theory and other things, not in being spoon-fed How To Do It from the pages of QST. Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? I musta missed this one too, when did the FCC start passing out Extras to Brits?? "Brits?" The FCC has no jurisdiction to citizen-residents of the United Kingdom. Did you miss out on geography and civics classes olde-tymer? He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. (a) When did bench-futzing SSB transmitter circuitry have anything to do with putting a wideband signal on the air? "Bench-futzing" (as you so quaintly put it in tuff-guy phillytalk) is essentially necessary to test and confirm a concept in hardware on the bench. Since you are unaquainted with radio-electronics design work, I may have to explain it further for your education. "Bench-futzing" is how all your ready-made, designed-by-others radio toys get developed. Those don't spring into existance the moment you wave a plastic card around in an HRO. Define "wideband." The narrowbanders on HF have very old concepts of "wideband" considering they inhabit rather narrowband pieces of spectrum and thinking that voice bandwidths of maximum 3 KHz are "wide." (b) When did SSB become "wideband"? From Day One of SSB on radio. 12 KHz straight from Type C Carrier equipment developed for Long Lines. Commercial. All it needed was the RF end to replace the wires. Militaries soon picked up on the commercial technique and ran with that. Four voice-bandwidth channels over one transmitter. Could easily handle eight TTY circuits and two voice circuits. All on HF which "CW" (Conventional Wisdom) said couldn't be done in 1990s even though it was running fine on HF in 1930s. (c) You might note that phasing schemes for generating ssb signals have about as much applicability to ham radio today as you have ever had. Not only generating them but receiving them, olde-tymer. Do you recognize the name Dan Tayloe? U.S. Amateur Extra. Inventor of the Tayloe Mixer, ideally applicable to direct- conversion receivers with excellent unwanted sideband rejection if used with a following four-quadrature-phase network. In terms of your great life experience longevity, an invention that was fairly recent. If you bother to look around at the rest of the radio environment, you might - if mental eyesight is still possible - see some startling new developments in radio communications that happened in the last half century. Even as you get red in the face reading this, there are a hundred million little cellular telephones in use in just the United States...little full-duplex HTs operating at about 1 GHz, small enough to easily hold in one hand. Those didn't exist that tiny, light, or as high in frequency three decades ago. Not an amateur radio innovation yet it has become a part of worldwide social culture. Cordless telephones operate on up to the 5 GHz band now, are priced affordable for most in consumer electronics stores. Almost the size of cell phones and include caller ID while operating full- duplex. You won't recognize the leap in frequency increase because your radio world stops abruptly at 29.7 MHz and I doubt you can envision the uniqueness of solid-state RF circuitry, up to and including very high power solid-state that can be made modular with hot-swapping replacement of modules while operating (now the norm in high-power MF to UHF commercial transmitters). None of it was an amateur radio innovation or invention. You have, in the past, sneered and scoffed at automatic antenna tuners yet Collins Radio designed that into the USMC-contract T-195 that became operational in 1955. First widespread use of the Bruene Detector for forward-reverse wave detection on HF. Hughes Aircraft at a Ground Division designed the AN/PRC-104 for the U.S. military, the basic manpack 20 W HF transceiver that featured an automatic antenna tuner in a battery-powered rig, operational in 1986. It has higher-powered versions for vehicular installation, still operational. Imagine that...auto antenna tuning in a portable unit! Not an amateur radio innovation or invention. There's still testing going on with digital modulation of short-wave (HF spectrum) broadcasting but all indications are that it is a success after four years of such tests. The "CW" (Conventional Wisdom) pundits kept saying "it won't work, can't work on HF!" even though it did. Takes no more bandwidth than conventional AM yet offers more. All due to some innovation and invention by the "bench-futzers" who applied various techniques and Information Theory very cleverly. Several different ways are under investigation as to which one is best on the air. Not from amateur radio. A quarter million manpack and vehicular radios have been made and fielded for 30 to 80 MHz use since 1989. Those feature 10 hops per second FHSS with digital voice or data and include built-in encryption/decryption secure mode in real-time. New versions are half the size of the old, the old being the same size/weight of the PRC-104. Not from amateur radio. The number of handheld transceivers and mobile radios at VHF and higher in the commercial-government-military world easily outnumbers those HTs used by amateurs on amateur bands. The one reason that amateur VHF-and-up equipment is available at low relative cost is that base market in the non-amateur radio field. Of course your amateur world doesn't extend above above HF so that isn't "real" amateur radio. The Global Positioning Satellite System has become a reality, first tested in airborne reception in 1971 as NAVSTAR. Now it is a consumer item in electronics stores, useful to hikers, boaters, vehicle drivers of many kinds, farmers, among many who don't intend to drop big boom things (such as ICBMs) on nasties. It's also good for super-accurate time reference since each of the 24 GPS sats has a rubidium "atomic clock." Not an amateur radio development. Speaking of accurate time, there's all sorts (over 30 brands) of "radio clocks" in consumer electronic stores that update themselves auto- matically to WWVB every day/night and display the results (including calendar info) on LCDs. Battery powered, under $30 off-the-shelf. Definitely not an amateur radio innovation-invention...very narrowband at 1 Hz digital data rate. :-) Amateurs nowadays have HF transceivers that display operating frequency down to 10 Hz increments with "rock-solid" stability. It is taken for granted as if it was always so, yet only a couple of decades ago (slightly more) HF transceivers were of the VFO variety without the most stable rocks in the box. Very few hams have bothered to know anything but what the acronyms PLL and DDS mean, couldn't describe the frequency control system if their DXCC results depended on it. All brought about by commercial designer "bench-futzes" working with microprocessors and micro- controllers. May have been amateur radio related although such frequency control was also incorporated in commercial HF radio at the same market time. Log-periodic antennas have been around for a half century, fine for HF, extremely broadband, useful for when new HF ham bands are allocated every quarter century or so (last big band increase was in 1979, latest in 2003). Numerical Electromagnetic Code and Method-of-Moments E-H Field Theory has been present for over a dozen years yet amateurs aren't jumping at the chance to use such computer programs to tailor them to their QTHs. Development funded by the USN, source code is free. Well, I have to stand corrected. There just isn't that much innovation and invention IN amateur radio or BY amateur radio...and hasn't been for about the last half century. Sunnavagun! You keep on beeping, Kellie, tawkin tuff, and praising hum radio for raising the technical standards and leading the way in radio. CW gets through when everything else will, therefore it needs to be kept in the ham testing forever and ever. LHA / WMD |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Some have amassed almost 80 countries on old-fashioned SSB, though. But that was when we had some sunspots. .. . . pfft . . ! Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. As is this "bandwidtj based frequency plan" thing. Note that it would essentially knock AM and NFM off much of amateur HF. Note also that besides drastically widening the 'phone subbands, it cuts down the incentive to get an Extra. It's just plain goofy. She's advocating a new structure to "fix" the current structure which ain't broke. So is the ARRL by the way. They have a committee beavering away on a similar propsal which is even *worse* than Bonnie's. Most of all, note the unsubstantiated statements like 'by 2010, 30% will be Novice operators' and '80% of hams on HF radiate a medium bandwidth signal' and such. Where do these numbers come from? No response. What "Novices" with HF phone privs?? Mindless leap ahead. She's playing ham politician but she's no good at the art. One type of amateur HF wideband "experimentation" I know of is some folks fooling around with "enhanced SSB", which is plain old SSB with the frequency range widenend to up to 9 kHz. Some call it "single wideband". That garbage is simply ssb with tweeters, "hi-fi ssb", as if. Has nothing to do with wideband digital ops. This kind of nonsense periodically comes and goes, there have been at least a couple passes at "supermodulation" schemes. They silently died and nobody went to the funerals. There's also some digital voice experimentation going on, but the added complexity doesn't seem to give addded results. Yet. The broadcasters have been putting an experimental 10 Khz wide AM mode called "DRM"on the air for a year or so. Runs data, text & "hi-fi" audio, no image or video so even at 10Khz wide it isn't a true multimedia mode. Existing AM/FM, swl and ham rcvrs will not process DRM signals without extensive mods and a 'puter *or* a built-to-purpose rcvr the way I understand it. So as has usually been the case with the introduction of innovations in recent decades the commercials are already there at least on an experimental basis. It'll be interesting to see how well DRM flies, it just might work well for all I know but it's gotta survive the costs then the crud in the swl bands. To get anything like DRM running in the ham bands it'll have to impress large numbers of hams enough on a performance basis to convince them (us) to adopt a new mode which is completely incompatible with the existing equipment hams use. Historically that trick has never worked. And to answer your question: Yes, you can put a voice signal (digitized) through a 500 Hz pass band. You just need a modulation scheme meant for that application, and the tradeoff will come in the form of needing a really good S/N and/or more than real-time to send the message. A requirement to have very good S/N ratios in the HF ham bands is two strikes against a mode like this right out of the box. Dealing with the realtime issue is probably survivable. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) When did a 31 Hz wide mode become "wideband"? Martinez' innovation comes from scaling current wideband data communications at high rates to the slow, real-time rates of amateur radio environments. That involved some good application of Information Theory and other things, not in being spoon-fed How To Do It from the pages of QST. I noted that you didn't really provide an answer to the question. A comment was made about wide band modes. You responded with something about PSK-31. Now you go into what Peter Martinez scaled. You haven't address the comment on wide band modes. I snipped the rest of your lecture since it didn't really deal with what was asked. Dave K8MN |
|
|
|
|
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) When did a 31 Hz wide mode become "wideband"? Martinez' innovation comes from scaling current wideband data communications at high rates to the slow, real-time rates of amateur radio environments. That involved some good application of Information Theory and other things, not in being spoon-fed How To Do It from the pages of QST. I noted that you didn't really provide an answer to the question. The question was ambiguous and did not define "wide." Your name isn't "Kelly," sweetums. Ya gotta live near philly, eat hoagies and buy "gaz" for da car in order to impersonate Kelly. Got that? I've had it all along. I never for a moment believed that I was anyone named Kelly. The confusion is yours. A comment was made about wide band modes. You responded with something about PSK-31. Now you go into what Peter Martinez scaled. You wouldn't know Martinez if he had a leather suit instead of scales. Really? I beg to differ. At any rate, how would you be in a position to know what I know? Hello? Ever hear of Shannon's Law and the relationship of data rate versus bandwidth? It's fairly simple math and proportional. That means it can be SCALED as in relationship of numbers. That is simply more misdirection on your part. Tell us about the new wideband modes. You haven't address the comment on wide band modes. You want an address? [I'm not available...] It is apparent that you are unavailable. You don't seem to be able to address the question about wideband modes. Tell us about PSK-31 as a wideband mode. Dave K8MN |
In article , Leo
writes: On 05 Feb 2004 05:32:30 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: LOL, SCAOTP OK, Len, that's it - you owe me a new keyboard for that one.....this one's covered in coffee now, an^% jhfsd75 87t8 *^%^ 94w057y Download a new keyboard from Ten-Tec. Charge it to my account: Heil's Hum Radio and Storm Door Company. [used to be an earlier airline outfit under a woman CEO...] outer space for rent... LHA / WMD |
In article , Dave Heil Fibber
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? :-) When did a 31 Hz wide mode become "wideband"? Martinez' innovation comes from scaling current wideband data communications at high rates to the slow, real-time rates of amateur radio environments. That involved some good application of Information Theory and other things, not in being spoon-fed How To Do It from the pages of QST. I noted that you didn't really provide an answer to the question. The question was ambiguous and did not define "wide." Your name isn't "Kelly," sweetums. Ya gotta live near philly, eat hoagies and buy "gaz" for da car in order to impersonate Kelly. Got that? I've had it all along. We know. You are incurable. Some Tums would ease your gaz pains. You wouldn't know Martinez if he had a leather suit instead of scales. Really? I beg to differ. At any rate, how would you be in a position to know what I know? Extras shouldn't beg. That's unseemly. ANYONE'S "in a position to know" you don't know, snarly dave. Four neurons can't hold more than 16 bits of data. Hello? Ever hear of Shannon's Law and the relationship of data rate versus bandwidth? It's fairly simple math and proportional. That means it can be SCALED as in relationship of numbers. That is simply more misdirection on your part. Hokay...the entire rest of the radio world is familiar with Shannon's Law and the mathematical relationship of bandwidth, noise, information rate, and probability of error. They agree it is correct. But, as an amateur you disagree, calling it "misdirection." You need more than four neurons, senior alzheimer. Download some from Ten-Tec and improve your cognitive capability. Tell us about the new wideband modes. Why? You are an amateur keeping alive the Living Museum of Archaic Radio and imagining you are in a Star Trek universe with matter transporters. On-off carrier keying is the limit of your profound radio knowledge. We can't disappoint you with reality of the rest of the radio world. You are a proud and noble amateur, better than all professionals. Hail Ceasar and all the other salads... You don't seem to be able to address the question about wideband modes. It is at 79 Wistfull Vista. McGee, don't open that closet again... ... ... ... too late! LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (N2EY) writes: I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal. That's changed, but it's basically a preaching session. Does this mean we can expect another Sermon On The Antenna Mount soon? Show us the Righteousness of the True Path... It should be apparent to you, Leonard. They're discussing matters dealing with amateur radio. You've delivered bushels of sermons here but you have zip to do with amateur radio. Instead, you entertain us with tales of how the commercials do things and of your military exploits of fifty years back. Your claims of being here only to engage in civil debate on morse testing elimination ring very hollow. Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 05 Feb 2004 05:32:30 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: LOL, SCAOTP OK, Len, that's it - you owe me a new keyboard for that one.....this one's covered in coffee now, an^% jhfsd75 87t8 *^%^ 94w057y Download a new keyboard from Ten-Tec. Charge it to my account: Heil's Hum Radio and Storm Door Company. [used to be an earlier airline outfit under a woman CEO...] outer space for rent... "Snarly dave, I'm just trying to discuss the morse code test issue." --Leonard H. Anderson, 5 Feb. 2004 Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil Fibber writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Some Tums would ease your gaz pains. You wouldn't know Martinez if he had a leather suit instead of scales. Really? I beg to differ. At any rate, how would you be in a position to know what I know? Extras shouldn't beg. That's unseemly. ANYONE'S "in a position to know" you don't know, snarly dave. You aren't anyone. Four neurons can't hold more than 16 bits of data. N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact: No matter what job, educational level, employer, or government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr. Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." Hello? Ever hear of Shannon's Law and the relationship of data rate versus bandwidth? It's fairly simple math and proportional. That means it can be SCALED as in relationship of numbers. That is simply more misdirection on your part. Hokay...the entire rest of the radio world is familiar with Shannon's Law and the mathematical relationship of bandwidth, noise, information rate, and probability of error. They agree it is correct. But, as an amateur you disagree, calling it "misdirection." Wrong, friendly old gent. As an amateur, I don't disagree with Shannon. I disagree with your misdirection with talk of Shannon and scaling when you were asked if PSK-31 is wideband. You need more than four neurons, senior alzheimer. Download some from Ten-Tec and improve your cognitive capability. Ten-Tec has only firmware upgrades, Foghorn Lenhorn. They can't fix your inability to answer a question. Tell us about the new wideband modes. Why? Because you were asked about them and responded with some drivel about PSK-31. You are an amateur keeping alive the Living Museum of Archaic Radio and imagining you are in a Star Trek universe with matter transporters. Yes, I'm a radio amateur. You got that much correct. Then you got tangled up when you couldn't decide if I'm pursuing the past or the future. On-off carrier keying is the limit of your profound radio knowledge. N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact: No matter what job, educational level, employer, or government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr. Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." We can't disappoint you with reality of the rest of the radio world. You are a proud and noble amateur, better than all professionals. Who is "we"? I am a proud radio amateur and I spent a career in radio as a professional. You, on the other hand... You don't seem to be able to address the question about wideband modes. It is at 79 Wistfull Vista. ....Apartment PSK-31. Dave K8MN |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: It's been something like twelve years since the first of the piles of nocodes hit the bands 30Mhz. Mayber it's happened and I missed it but I have yet to see or hear of a single example of a nocode experimenting with a new wide mode. For that matter none of the Extra "wideband digigeeks"who have bleated the same refrain have done anything but talk either. Is PSK31 chopped liver? Maybe you don't recognize Peter Martinez, G3PLX? Maybe, Lennie...JUST maybe, if you KNEW something about Amateur Radio licensing, you'd realize that Mr. Martinez has a full-privilege license from Great Britain, and that as such he is a Morse Code tested licensee. Now I know that you were just as tickled as can be with yourself over this attempt to "prove" something, but it is just one more glaring example of your arrogant ignorance. He was experimenting with polyphase shifting networks for SSB back in 1973. And he was a Morse Code tested Amateur then, Lennie. Worn out transparent old smokescreen, all of it. Smoking isn't good for you. You ought to quit. YOU ought to quit trying to pawn yourself of as someone who knows something about Amateur Radio. You don't. No steam left in your catapult? We are all desolate... The desolation is you being apart from the real world, Lennie. If you'd stop lying, fighting and antagonizing, YOU could be a part of it... But alas, you're lost... Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: "Snarly dave, I'm just trying to discuss the morse code test issue." --Leonard H. Anderson, 5 Feb. 2004 Snarly dave, I'm just trying to discuss the morse code test issue. Leonard H. Anderson, 6 February 2004 Laminate that and put it in your wallet, Herr Robust. Can't you access the NTS to send your Nastygrams via ham radio? Now quit trying to close-order drill the inhabitants of here. Your SS rank was never qualified for pushing around newsgroupies. LHA / WMD |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil Fibber writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil male impersonator writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Some Tums would ease your gaz pains. You wouldn't know Martinez if he had a leather suit instead of scales. Really? I beg to differ. At any rate, how would you be in a position to know what I know? Extras shouldn't beg. That's unseemly. ANYONE'S "in a position to know" you don't know, snarly dave. You aren't anyone. Not even chopped liver? (snarly dave won't get it, goyishe as he are...:-) N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact: No matter what job, educational level, employer, or government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr. Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." Ah...still having to quote others. No originality left. Tsk, tsk. Arf, arg, the little doggie keeps yipping a vendetta. Git along, little doggie... Wrong, friendly old gent. As an amateur, I don't disagree with Shannon. Heh. You can't even comprehend Claude Elwood's 1948 paper. I disagree with your misdirection with talk of Shannon and scaling when you were asked if PSK-31 is wideband. Disagreement noted. And noted. And noted. And noted. (I hope Office Max has enough note paper for your effronts) Ten-Tec has only firmware upgrades, Foghorn Lenhorn. They can't fix your inability to answer a question. Oh? There was a QUESTION?!?!? Herr Robust is now the Questionmeister in here? Ach zo! Seig heil das questionmeister! Gruss gott. Because you were asked about them and responded with some drivel about PSK-31. Drivel questions get drivel answers. That's only fair... Yes, I'm a radio amateur. You got that much correct. Amateur...not only in radio. :-) N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact: Bleep bleep expletive deleted... :-) Still no signs of originality. Tsk, tsk. Have you thought of attending an adult night school class in Written English? I am a proud radio amateur and I spent a career in radio as a professional. You, on the other hand... PROUD! Do you have dress blues you wear with a ceremonial sword? Do you sing "The Amateur's Hymn" and say catch-phrases like "distemper fidelis?" Do you celebrate Hamorial Day at the Tomb of the Unknown Amateur? A little hamflag flutters from the amateur antenna of your SUV? You attend Mass formation at the Church of St. Hiram every Field Day? Is your First General Order "I shall key my code in a military manner, keeping always on the alert and observing all the stations within sight and hearing?" Do you do close-order drill with slung HTs? Snarly dave, I betcha you got one of those shiny shield badges that proclaims you a "raddio kopp" in a neat real-leather buzzer holder! I'll bet you go up to strangers on the street, grab them by the collar and shout "I am fully authorized by the federal authorities to operate a ham radio station!" Must make you feel proud as all-get-out. Official. Authoritative. Boring. Get out. You don't seem to be able to address the question about wideband modes. It is at 79 Wistfull Vista. ...Apartment PSK-31. Such a baby. "79 Wistfull Vista" was the address of Fibber McGee and Molly. Old radio show. Entertained millions once a week on radio. You are too young to hear of it? Tsk, tsk. On RADIO, snarly dave, on RADIO. You missed all that fun while prepping for your rank, status, privilege as a mighty macho morseman as a fully authorized (by a federal government) radio AMATEUR! I now return control of the newsgroup to amateur radio policy subjects such as Janet Jackson's breast... LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil Ding Dong Schoolmaster writes: It should be apparent to you, Leonard. They're discussing matters dealing with amateur radio. Yes, Janet Jackson's breast, U.S. foreign policy, the local weather, national societal morals to name just four common "amateur radio" subjects. :-) There's your problem! In the post to which you responded, amateur radio was indeed under discussion. You've delivered bushels of sermons here but you have zip to do with amateur radio. And snarly dave has delivered tonnes of diatribes against individuals for having the temerity to disagree with a radio god such as He! Again, Leona, my total posts in eight years would equal about two weeks of your newsgroup output. Have the several of you reached a concensus yet as to whether I'm a radio god? Instead, you entertain us with tales of how the commercials do things and of your military exploits of fifty years back. You don't seem very entertained? Shall I strap on my Haney plates? Which ones--the decorative light switch plates by Anne Haney, the photographic plates from the R.J. Haney Heritage Park, or "The Optimist" plates by Jill Haney? No matter, strap 'em on. It'll spiff up your act. "Military exploits?" I don't think I've ever exploited anyone while serving my country in the U.S. Army. Oh, I'll bet you're just being modest. Okay, maybe a couple gals in Red Bank, New Jersey, but that was long ago, probably before you got diapers. I shudder to think what particular acts in which you and the girls from Red Bank were involved, which required diapers. Your claims of being here only to engage in civil debate on morse testing elimination ring very hollow. The Ding Dong Schoolmaster done ring his chimes! Snarly dave, don't they have any rest homes in your neck of the woods? You could go out there and berate some Alzheimer's patient about losing their memory and not getting a ham license. Izzat your problem, that you suffer from Alzheimer's and that you've lost your memory and forgot to go for that Extra you wrote of? I don't know of any local non-hams posting here. Better yet, accost an Orthodox Jew and start lecturing them about ham. What an utterly strange thing for you to write. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com