| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
June 24th 04, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: Mike Coslo Date: 6/24/2004 10:11 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard. Guess who was president..... Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level - something considered intolerable. And please remember that these were the conditions passed to him by a... (drum roll, please....) A Demoncrat! And a Demoncrat before THAT one! We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980. The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative! Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake? And the last President to have a balanced budget...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#62
June 24th 04, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do without anything. But it's just not true. I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item, Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn. When did President Reagan ever make such a statement? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#64
June 25th 04, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the '90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!' Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated! Not complicated at all. It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators. Then educate them. You have the mighty certificates, you have the technology..."train" them. Choo choo. :-) BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in urban areas. FCC and NTIA say differently The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL. Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL. Docket 04-37 asks for comment for a proposed R&O. NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!" Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an RF cesspool of noise on HF. Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF. Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA? My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative. What did you build in 1947, senior? Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in 1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too. Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other strong signals adjacent. Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad, made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed). Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL, Rev. Jimmie Who?!? Did we see your pearls of technical and economic wisdom in multi-page Comments on docket 04-37? Say goodnight. Temper fry... LHA / WMD |
|
#65
June 25th 04, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's... Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets... I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov Viet Nam. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". Then some review of American History is in order. With the exception of the Revolution, most technological advances were during or immediately after some major conflict, especially since 1860. (Please note the use of the word "advancements", not necessarily inception) Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography becomes popular. Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part to decide whether it is OK for the country to split tiself in half so that some people (with light colored skin) can continue own other people (with dark colored skin). The fact that the dark colored skin people's ancestors were dragged from their homes by brute force is conveniently ignored by those who want to continue to own them. Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded. Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying heavily damaged during the war. Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter. Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war. World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches). Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases hazards of sea travel. Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased demand for those technologies. World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet engine, further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology skyrockets. Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed, permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns. 50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much of Europe. Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of the television. Satellite communications. Satellite communications? Where? Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of helos) IR/NVG technology. Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian applications. SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially into medical field. In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?! Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called engineering. You don't need a war to do it. I don't think so, Jim. It's true. All of the major developments of other technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by governments. Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems? Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the above. There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes. Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing... MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't. Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some? In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. Oh? Yes. How much do you pay for a calculator these days? Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows calculator function. Free. How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought? $589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and audio filter options, which I assembled. The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US made ham gear. Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan? Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last year.... All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order to advance military or space technology. Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If you need better medical Xray machines, develop them. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a slide rule or pencil and paper. The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military. And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it? No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years? Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to it. Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle bay. That could work. I had the same idea years ago. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay *empty*. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more. Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM combo is so small. the mission drops in, and brings at least part of the lander home for re-use itself. Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit and the lunar package went from there. And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo missions, not a long term base. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Oh? Yes. NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?! Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how much money it costs to create one NASA job. If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every company that contracts with it would be able to Sure - at a price. But why not solve our problems directly? And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We just need to have the gonads to take them. What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned, and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with the development of fiber optics. It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. Yep...the public lost interest since there was no "obvious" return on thier investment other than national pride. However the long terms benefits have been overwhelming. While there have been some benefits, they have not been overwhelming. Most of them did not require the space program. Or war. NOW...if we were to take the chance on an expedition or perm/semi-perm base on the Moon to determine it's value to be harvested...?!?! What do you think could be harvested from the Moon that can't be had for much less right here on earth? All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables are bound to go boom. CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't. Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability. As for your "reliability analysis" try the numbers based on miles flown...(Just proof that you can make any set of numbers look good/bad) Not a valid comparison. In the history of shuttle missions, the result is binary. Either everybody gets back safe and sound from a mission, or everyone dies and the mission is a total loss. Doesn't matter how many miles or flown - the important variable is how many missions are flown. Challenger blew up before going 100 miles of its last mission, Columbia burned up after going all but about 2000 miles of its last mission. The important fact is that about 1 of 75 missions has been a complete loss. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. Do you think it would have been different with Nixon in the White House in 1960? Yes. But that's not the point. He was an avowed anit-Communist. Do you think he might not ahve made the same challenge, faced with the same circumstances...?!?! I bet he would have made the challenge earlier than JFK did. Nope. JFK needed to save face after the Bay of Pigs embarrassment. There was serious talk of scrapping the whole manned program, maybe even all of NASA, after the various problems of exploding rockets and the Popped Cork fiasco, while the Russians were orbiting dogs and taking pictures of the far side of the moon. (The Rooskies had lots of failures too - they just didn't talk about them). There were more than a few people who thought that the Air Force should do manned space flight. There were plans for followups to the X-15 that would reach orbit at far less cost and complexity than the ballistic-missile spam-in-a-can NASA approach. In fact, the X-15 did reach "space" - it exceeded 62.2 miles altitude. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. Today there is no such need or competition. There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. Who is there to compete with for space? No..we don't need to build a bigger, more deadly nuke, but a bit of friendly rivalry goes a long way towards building a better and cheaper mouse trap. The race to the moon wasn't friendly. And it didn't build better mouse traps. The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) I am sure that having been in LBJ's home state had soemthing to do with it...But being more-or-less half way between FL and CA helped. Much of America's space program is out of Edwards and Vandenberg, if you will recall. The *only* reason was to put high paying jobs in LBJ's home state. The launch facility is in Florida for physics reasons. The ideal launch location would be on the equator, but the continental US doesn't go that far south. And there should be water or desert to the east of the launch pad so failed launches don't land on people. The Houston facility could be anywhere there is communications. Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. Because American unions demanded wages that pushed the cost of American cars through the roof. That's pure BS. Union workers built the spacecraft. If we could afford to have them build rockets, we could afford to have them build cars. Also, American tastes in automobiles up until then were for bigger, heavier and faster..."Small" was not a generally popular concept in the 50's and 60's, if you'll recall. That's because the car companies wanted it that way. Here's why: After WW2, American car manufacturers thought that the way to maximize profits was simply to sell more and more cars. One way to do that was to have this year's model be bigger, faster, more powerful or simply 'more' than last year's. Safety, economy, and pollution were minor concerns - the important thing was to plant in the public's mind the idea that this year's car was somehow a lot better - and at the same time, keep manufacturing costs down. So body styles changed every year - sheet metal is cheap. Fundamental research into engine design and such was not a high priority at all. The result was cars that were big, heavy, inefficient, dirty and fell apart or rusted out in a relatively short time. Most of all, the focus was short-term. Sell more cars next quarter! Where we'd get all the fuel to run them wasn't a concern. The Germans and the Japanese were forced by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small". Not really - look at Mercedes. What they did was look at *quality* first. They set out to design cars that were efficient and well built. They improved the basic technologies, not just the sheet metal. Ever hear of a guy named Deming? He wound up in Japan because US manufacturers didn't want him. The USA could have been developing better surface transportation systems in the '50s and '60s and '70s. But we didn't because those things weren't given any priority. That myopia continues today. Imagine if the commitment had been made back in 1973 for the USA to become energy independent by the end of the 20th century. Do you doubt that it could have been done? Imagine being able to tell OPEC to take a hike. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. Not by a private entrepreneur and not with the expectation of being able to carry two passengers. Very true. But the X-15 was designed with slide rules. No computers aboard, either. Also, despite the similarities in delivery techniques (parasite lifter), the control and recovery techniques are different. It took the USAF hundreds of millions of (1960's) dollars to do what these guys did for under $30M...I wonder what the 1960-to-2004 cost comparisons look like? And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. OK...so we sit out manned space flight until private investors can get up-to-speed with governmental levels of service...?!?! Why not? You just pointed out that they did it for $30 million compared to many times that for the X-15. Why *not* let the private folks do it? So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. OK - let's have the details. And I cannot see those costs getting any less impressive if we wait until 2014 or 2024 to do it. Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. So again...we bring human exploration and technology to a screaming halt due to our fear of the cash register? Nope. We set out a reasonable budget for manned space flight and do what can be done with that budget. And we focus more on real-world problems. And as for the failed Mars missions, do you think that maybe if there had been someone there to fix the problem that the mission could have proceeded? Nobody knows. Most of the failures were mission-ending. The probe went silent and was never heard from again. Heck, even if the Columbia astronauts had known about the problem that caused the loss of their ship, there was nothing they could have done about it. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth... I mean how much time it takes. What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Having a Human Being actually stand on it, for one. Besides that. And how much all of it would cost? Who cares? Those of us who have to pay for it. We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T provide ANY return every year Like what? What are you willing to cut in order to fund a Mars mission? ...why not spend it on something that will...?!?! Sorry - the ROI of a Mars mission just isn't there. Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. See above. You're avoiding the question. How much additional tax are *YOU* willing to pay? Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be by using the moon for alternative wireless technologies... There aren't any. The moon isn't a good platform for such things. In short, it sucks. Geostationary orbit is the way to do that job. Ham radio connection: Back in the '70s there was something called "Project Moonray" that was supposed to go on the last Apollo lunar mission. The idea was that a small package would be deployed on the moon to repeat amateur signals the way OSCARs did. Except that by being on the moon, it would be easy to track. Sounded good at first. But the problems were many. Size and weight were severely limited, and the package had to be rated for manned flight. But the big problem was that the results were not worth the requirements. For example, the moon is roughly 10 times farther away than geostationary and roughly 100 to 1000 times farther away than low earth orbit. You do the math on what that does to path loss. Also, the package would be bked by the sun for 2 weeks, then in darkness for 2 weeks. Temperature variations of over 400 degrees. It didn't happen. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Oh? They are...?!?! Yes. It's simple: If you want a better mouse trap, study mouse behavior and trap design, and build one. Don't go off building racecars, hoping that some development of race car technology will somehow spill over into mouse trap technology. Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed? No. We address the problems directly. On a budget. Until they develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp drive? Those are all fantasies, Steve. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. So we just mark time until...when...?!?! We don't mark time. We make a long term plan and reasonable budget. Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded. We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts. And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development, transportation, and energy independence. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#66
June 25th 04, 05:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: Mike Coslo Date: 6/24/2004 10:11 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard. Guess who was president..... Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level - something considered intolerable. And please remember that these were the conditions passed to him by a... (drum roll, please....) A Demoncrat! And a Demoncrat before THAT one! And Before that, a Republican that set the wheels in motion for big deficit spending. And so on and so on... Been waiting for you to weigh in on this one Steve. You are 100 percent correct. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and life is a continuum. Democrats make mistakes, and so do Republicans. As time goes on, the groups don't stand still. They morph and change until some of the old definitions gert a little muddy. So called conservatives now stand for big government with more power, and spend money quite easily. We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980. The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative! Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake? And the last President to have a balanced budget...?!?! You see Steve, you're trying to put everything into this Republican good/Democrat bad state. I'm not either. I'm an independent conservative. I vote for Republican candidates around 60 percent of the time. Frankly, both parties **** me off. But you might ask why I seem to be busting Republican chops a lot. It's because the Pubs have been in power for most of the last 50 years, and increasingly so in the last 20. And yet, the blame for all the problems is heaped variously on the Democrats, and the elusive "liberal". I say spend less time blaming, and more time fixing. But of course that takes us back to what I said earlier about Republicans making mistakes too. Now if they owned up to them. It's a pity - when you never admit a mistake, you won't learn from the ones you do make. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#67
June 25th 04, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do without anything. But it's just not true. I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item, Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn. When did President Reagan ever make such a statement? It's not a quote, Steve. It's a general idea that was front-and-center in Reagan's campaign and administration. Remember the theme "Morning in America" from his campaign? Remember yuppies? "Supply side economics"? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#68
June 25th 04, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the '90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!' Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated! Not complicated at all. It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators. Then educate them. I tried, Len. They just don't get it. I'm just a poor dumb old amateur anyway. You've told me time and time again how unqualified I am, how I "live in the past", how I don't know anything about "big time radio" and such, and how you're a "professional in radio". I still work regular hours and then some - I'm not retired like you. I'm not a wordsmith like you. I don't even make up names to call other people in newsgroups like you. I'm only 50 years old. If they won't listen to you, why should they listen to me? My main interests in HF amateur radio are operating Morse code and building ham radio equipment - either from kits or from my own designs. Three years ago I bought a kit from a little company in California and built it. Rest of my projects are what we hams call "homebrew". You've made fun of them so many times that they must be of no account, right? BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in urban areas. FCC and NTIA say differently The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL. That's different from saying "BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in urban areas." They're the professionals and the regulators and the military, Len. I'm just a poor dumb old amateur anyway. What do I know? Who am I to contradict professionals who know what's best for me? FCC has said a Morse code test "serves no regulatory purpose". FCC has reduced the requirements for a ham radio license again and again for more than 25 years. The same FCC now refuses to interpret Part 15 the same way I do. Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL. I gave them plenty. I also contributed to the ARRL fund to fight BPL. NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!" Does it say "acceptible" or "acceptable", Len? How do you know it isn't acceptable? How much communicating on the HF amateur bands have you done in the past month? Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an RF cesspool of noise on HF. Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF. Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA? No. I'm just commenting on you lack of receiver knowledge and skill. That's understandable - professionals gave up on regenerative receivers decades ago. My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative. Couldn't get it to work, huh? Here's a hint: The tickler coil has to be connected the right way to get the detector to regenerate. Even I know that. What did you build in 1947, senior? Nothing, Len. I wasn't around. I wasn't bootlegging an unlicensed transmitter, either. But 20 years later, in 1967, I got an amateur radio license. And began to use it. Today it's 57 years later than 1947 and you haven't done any of that. . Senior? Guess what - yesterday I got an application to join AARP. They want me as a member. So I guess I'm a senior citizen now, huh? Maybe I'll join. I've built regenerative and superheterodyne receivers. Also transmitters, transceivers, power supplies, antennas, antenna tuners, station control systems, test equipment and much more. Most of it from scratch, some kits. But none of that counts for anything, does it, Len? Homebrewing is "living in the past", according to you, isn't it? We hams all just buy our factory made equipment, right? Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in 1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too. Then it wasn't "one tube". was it? Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other strong signals adjacent. Poorly designed and built, then. Or maybe you couldn't get that one to work either, huh? Too 'primitive' for you, I suppose. Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad, made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed). So you lied to a child. That must be the "professional" thing to do, eh? Couldn't you do anything to improve it? You're a "professional in radio". Here's a hint, Len: It's possible to build a very good regenerative receiver and possible to build a very bad one. And everything in between. A regen that can't hear the noise level is very bad indeed. Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL, Rev. Jimmie Who?!? I don't know anyone by that name. To whom do you refer, Len? It can't be me - Reverends are professionals in religion. I'm just an amateur. |
|
#69
June 25th 04, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's... Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets... And "nothing" we did had ANYthing to do with science, technology or research...?!?! You are saying we spent those funds and that effort SOLELY to "catch up with the Soviets"...?!?! Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography becomes popular. Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part...(SNIP) Yes, Jim...I think we all know WHY the war was fought. HOW did that negate anything I said? Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded. Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying heavily damaged during the war. Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter. Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war. So...you are telling me that NONE of the advancements and improvements occured asa a result of the war. OK. If you say so. World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches). Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases hazards of sea travel. Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased demand for those technologies. And the advancement of submarine technology increased our ability to do further marine research in the following years. Commercial radio for the masses follows developments of new technology during the war. Commercial aviation blossoms after the war. World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet engine, further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology skyrockets. Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed, permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns. 50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much of Europe. So what you're telling me is that NONE of the POSITIVE things that came from this era are valid, and that since a lot of bad things DID occur, we should shun the good ones too...?!?! Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of the television. Satellite communications. Satellite communications? Where? Jim... We developed new technologies DURING the conflict. The increased spending and military build-up incidental to the Korean Conflict and the ensuing "Cold War" DID spur on "satellite" communications...Did it not? Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of helos) IR/NVG technology. Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian applications. Applicaitons that were incidental to military spending and research. SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially into medical field. In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?! Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called engineering. You don't need a war to do it. No, you don't. It's just that we have developed a pattern of spurts of development coincidental to military spending or conflict. This is a documented fact. It happens. I don't think so, Jim. It's true. All of the major developments of other technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by governments. Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems? I agree. Now, what better to way to spur the development of newer technologies than to advance the space program...?!?! Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the above. There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others. Jim...Jim...Jim... The rapid development of automotive technologies came after WW2...As did developments in aviation and communications. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes. Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing... MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't. Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some? In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. Oh? Yes. You've not proven it, Jim. We are presently exchanging these comments via a medium that was developed incidental to yet other military programs. The proliferation of the Internet has driven communication costs to all time lows. Cellular technology, based in part on techniques developed for secure communications for...you-know-who...have put a telephone on the hip of almost every American. How much do you pay for a calculator these days? Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows calculator function. Free. And you paid how much for your Windows program...Or the computer it was installed on when you got it? I remember simple function calculators costing $40 or more when I was in high school. I can get a decent full function scientific calculator for less than that now. How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought? $589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and audio filter options, which I assembled. Uh huh. And how much will that radio do compared to kit radios of only a decade earlier, and at what cost comparison...?!?!?! The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US made ham gear. Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan? Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last year.... TMI, Jim...Waaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaay TMI... ! ! ! All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order to advance military or space technology. Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If you need better medical Xray machines, develop them. You can argue what OUGHT to be as opposed to WHAT IS all day, Jim. All you'll do is waste time. And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a slide rule or pencil and paper. The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military. Who said anything about PC's, Jim? And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it? Yep. Paid for by...?!?! In pursuit of...?!?! No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years? Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to it. So...there's NO technology that exisits today that would allow us to land a man on the moon in say...two years...if we really wanted to...?!?! Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle bay. That could work. I had the same idea years ago. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay *empty*. (sheeeesh) So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system? It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks necessary to do it? I'll bet you a nickle to a C-Note that Burt Rutan could rough out a workable method on a napkin in a Mojave restaurant and have itr working in that two years. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. Oh? Why? Just because? They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to stay in LEO. The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more. Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM combo is so small. Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank? We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit? We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction is a no-brainer. So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the Moon? HARDWARE, yes...we need new machines. but so far, Jim, your "arguments" have not swayed me that we could do it if we wanted to... the mission drops in, and brings at least part of the lander home for re-use itself. Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit and the lunar package went from there. Why? And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo missions, not a long term base. As long as you keep thinking that, then that's all we'll do. If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we COULD do if we wanted to. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Oh? Yes. NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?! Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how much money it costs to create one NASA job. So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care workers, mechanics, etc? If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every company that contracts with it would be able to Sure - at a price. Sheeesh. But why not solve our problems directly? Sure...Why not. Let's just go ahead and drop a billion dollars into social welfare programs to feed and house the poor. Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty. And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. Uh huh. A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We just need to have the gonads to take them. What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned, and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with the development of fiber optics. Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure. All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables are bound to go boom. CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't. ROTMFFLMMFAO ! ! ! ! ! ! Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability. And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?! There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. Who is there to compete with for space? The Red Chinese for one. They just flew a manned mission a year or so ago, and they certainly have the resources and the wherewithall to exploit it. And considering thier track record for flooding markets with cheap alternatives that have, quite literally, put hundred of thousands if not millions of Americans out of work, I don't doubt they can do it there, too. I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying Americans. Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded. We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts. And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development, transportation, and energy independence. I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be forthcoming from this exchange, Jim. If you believe that "all that money" is going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today, well then there's just no use doing it. I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take advantage of the opportunities "out there". Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#70
June 25th 04, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/25/2004 4:39 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do without anything. But it's just not true. I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item, Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn. When did President Reagan ever make such a statement? It's not a quote, Steve. It's a general idea that was front-and-center in Reagan's campaign and administration. Remember the theme "Morning in America" from his campaign? Remember yuppies? "Supply side economics"? So... Promoting consumer confidence and spending (witch ultimately drives the economy) was wrong? Steve, K4YZ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
