|
European Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Contests working Earth-Mars contacts should be interesting, when you remember that speed'o light means that radio signals take about 5 to 15 minutes one way to make the trip... If my math is right, the one-way transmission time works out to between 188 seconds at closest approach to 688 seconds maximum. But you can count on contest ops to figure a way to make that work. Use the transmission time as a 'buffer' of sorts. Not a problem. SO2R is just the beginning. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 09 Aug 2004 23:45:24 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Contests working Earth-Mars contacts should be interesting, when you remember that speed'o light means that radio signals take about 5 to 15 minutes one way to make the trip... If my math is right, the one-way transmission time works out to between 188 seconds at closest approach to 688 seconds maximum. Well, it's not correct. The 188 seconds is pretty close but the 688 is way off because I added the Earth orbit radius rather than diameter. Or perhaps grabbed the distance data off the wrong website? :) Nah...just Internet QRM...he was reading video instead of morse. :-) Oh, my! Had anyone else come up with those numbers you would have sent many a multi-screen message accosting them of error-prone perfidy! :-) I can see the reply now: "Wrong again, ..xxx.......", followed by the usual Jim-style rub-the-nose-in-it verbiage. Plus a nice little macro to insert in other, later messages, claiming that the error-maker "always made errors" and isn't trustworthy and may not use deoderant... Here's a more exact calculation: Per NASA website, the Earth's orbit varies from 149.5 to 149.7 million kilometres and Mars' orbit varies from 204.52 to 246.28 million kilometres. The closest the two planets approach is 204.52 - 149.7 = 54.82 million kilometres The farthest apart they get is 246.28 + 149.7 = 395.98 million kilometres Using 0.3 million km/sec (that's 300,000,000 metres/sec) as the speed of light, we get: 54.82 / 0.3 = 183 sec (3 minutes 3 seconds) 395.98 / 0.3 = 1320 sec (22 minutes 0 seconds) give or take...... What, no EXACTNESS? Speed of light isn't EXACTLY that nice round figure. Tsk, tsk. Precision is for others. True, but the unique criticsm is HIS... :-) But you can count on contest ops to figure a way to make that work. Use the transmission time as a 'buffer' of sorts. Not a problem. Ingenious use of the delay interval would permit pretty good contest rates. Of course the ability to work duplex would be a plus. I am non-plussed. With a 44 minute round-trip time you wouldn't need any sort of T/R switch, just solder some lands on a PCB to do the same job to go from Rx to Tx and back again. :-) For rag chewing, contacts between fixed nonpolar stations on each planet up to about 12 hours long are possible if the locations are just right at both ends. You could WEAVE the rag material, cut it to shape, sew it up in the time of those contacts... :- No problem, though, for someone who takes 48 hours to reply to this little Usenet-based QSO - and fails to reply in context of the thread at that. Think of it as "a buffer." :-) "I just noticed that I was incorrect - all by myself!" Duh. Well, at least he NOTICED... He took the time out to look...away from Worked All Usenet logging... SO2R is just the beginning. Of course the reason no one - professional or amateur - has been awarded the Elser-Mathes Cup is because it requires operators at both ends of the QSO. Human space programs won't be in a position to do that for decades yet. Ah! One of the remarkable OBVIOUS statements! :-) And a brilliant one at that.....you need someone on the other end of a QSO? Sunnavagun! He could have called for the comic strip character "Obviousman!" I hearby nominate you for three or four votes in the Department of Redundancy Department. But not the Department of Mathematics. I keep having the crazy idea that a relative was working at JPL when they had that conversion error on a probe a while back. The one that failed due to the wrong constant or something, metric instead of english... Nah. Okay, now what is the PATH LOSS and what kind of Tx power is needed at each end for a given S:N ratio? Can you get by on amateur radio power levels? Without violating any of the regulations? How about Doppler Shift? How much? LHA / WMD |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 8 Aug 2004 11:14:28 -0700, (William) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. On 07 Aug 2004 19:53:20 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: Contests working Earth-Mars contacts should be interesting, when you remember that speed'o light means that radio signals take about 5 to 15 minutes one way to make the trip... If my math is right, the one-way transmission time works out to between 188 seconds at closest approach to 688 seconds maximum. Hmmmm - interesting math for an MSEE..... and quite incorrect indeed. Good amateur-level research skills, though. :) His skills rusty. Works for EPA. Solve global warming. Nah - I'm pretty sure he claims to have had a successful career in electrical engineering - a field where, I suppose, being off by over 100% in a calculation would be completely acceptable (so THAT'S what fuses are for!). 8*p That can all be blamed on the pentium floating point zero. That, and being employed full time in amateur radio, and currrently working on his WAU (Worked All Usenet). One day he woke up and found out he had a career in amateur radio. A bit short that. According to my Almanac ("World Almanac and Book of Facts 2001" published by World Almanac Books, p. 587), the minimum to maximum distances of Earth to Mars are 34 to 249 Million miles. At 186,000 Miles per second, the ONE-WAY time works out to be 183 to 1339 seconds (3.05 to 22.3 minutes). Now them's the right numbers! The following website confirms these distances, after conversion from km to miles: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/planets/mars.htm Ooops. Now you've done it. Never, Ever back-up anything Len has posted. Here comes Hiram's Hammer! Duck! A single two-way contact, one transmission at each end, would take 6 to 44 minutes to complete, depending on the planetary positions. The limiting factor on "rag chews" would be limited by rotation of both planets. :-) ...and those periods when that pesky moon of ours is in the path :) But it's made of cheese. Only very slight attenuation at HF. Of course, Rev. Jim, you WILL call MY calculations "incorrect" or "wrong" or something like that, won't you? :-) Careful - you're contradicting an expert here - ain't never been wrong yet! 8*p Hi, hi! It's true! Just ask him! 73, Leo Jim won't say. Just ask him! Hi, hi. |
On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
snip BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that you have a Patent registered to you, in the area od radio. Interesting - mind if I ask what it was? U.S. # 3,848,191 - Pulse Compression Receiver with AGC, granted in 1974, assigned to RCA Corporation. Sole inventor on patent. Missed two other applications due to being too close to prior art. Basically it is a pulse processor and operating in an environment of many different pulses, only a few of which come close to being in synchronism with the system. The application was for SECANT, an R&D project for 4 years at RCA, the acronym standing for SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non-synchronous Techniques. SECANT was an aircraft collision avoidance system and in direct R&D competition with a modified helicopter station-keeping system done by Minneapolis-Honeywell. Both the RCA and Minnie-Honey systems were flight-tested successfully in PA at the (former) Naval Air Development Center (NADC). Flight testing local in PA, at the Patuxent River range, and at Key West, Florida, observed by FAA troops locally as well as USN and USA people. First air tested at Kern County Airport #7, Mojave, CA...("Mojave International" in fun) now the site for Scaled Composites, the first company to make it into space privately. SECANT worked at 1.6 GHz nominal bandcenter. The final version (of three) in 1974 used 8 SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) matched bandpass filters done on quartz substrates (done at Sommerville, NJ) at 1 MHz bandwidths centered between 55 and 64 MHz. I got to play with the SAW filters and the final version IF-detectors plus the pulse pre-processor. Al Walston, W6MJN, and I shared responsibility for the Tx and Rx parts. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was the engineering technical manager over the last two versions of SECANT and all of RIHANS, another R&D program, again working in L-band at the RF level. The U.S. government scuttled any more testing funding in 1974 for both the RCA and Minnie-Honey systems, opting for a less-tested ATC transponder modification which is now in use, but only by the air carriers and large executive aircraft. TCAS? (now TCAS II) Military doesn't use that system. MIT had friends in higher places to sway gubmint opinion. RCA Corporation began (well before WW2) as a place to hold U.S. patents and try to keep control on the then-new technology of radio. As a result, RCA built up a fantastic legal staff and pursued patent filings aggressively. Back in '74 the average cost of any electronic patent application cost about $6000, nearly all of it being taken up by the non-patent-office Search costs. Corporate employees of the lower levels would not get much chance to patent anything unless a corporation had a large legal staff. I was lucky in getting a sole patent award and don't sweat the other two at RCA nor the one multiple-inventor patent turn-down at Electro-Optical Systems (Xerox division). [sometimes good minds think alike! :-)] Very impressive - thanks for the summary. I'd never heard of the SECANT system before. That would have been quite a challenge back in '74 - all discrete components, no microprocessors, no CAD tools or circuit emulators....real hands-on design work. No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW transmitters from plans? :-) :-) :-) |
Subject: European Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?
From: Leo Date: 8/11/2004 6:31 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that you have a Patent registered to you, in the area od radio. Interesting - mind if I ask what it was? U.S. # 3,848,191 - Pulse Compression Receiver with AGC, granted in 1974, assigned to RCA Corporation. Sole inventor on patent. Missed two other applications due to being too close to prior art. Lennie-to-English translation: "I was a bit too slow copying the files so I could make it look like it was my idea first." No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW transmitters from plans? None of the "heat" Lennie is taking is due to his alleged professional career or what he thinks he knows...it's about lying, antagonism, profanity and not doing what he says he's going to do. In short...he's a creep. Steve, K4YZ |
Leo wrote:
On 10 Aug 2004 03:16:20 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 09 Aug 2004 23:45:24 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Contests working Earth-Mars contacts should be interesting, when you remember that speed'o light means that radio signals take about 5 to 15 minutes one way to make the trip... If my math is right, the one-way transmission time works out to between 188 seconds at closest approach to 688 seconds maximum. Well, it's not correct. The 188 seconds is pretty close but the 688 is way off because I added the Earth orbit radius rather than diameter. Or perhaps grabbed the distance data off the wrong website? :) Nah...just Internet QRM...he was reading video instead of morse. :-) Oh, my! Had anyone else come up with those numbers you would have sent many a multi-screen message accosting them of error-prone perfidy! :-) I can see the reply now: "Wrong again, ..xxx.......", followed by the usual Jim-style rub-the-nose-in-it verbiage. Plus a nice little macro to insert in other, later messages, claiming that the error-maker "always made errors" and isn't trustworthy and may not use deoderant... We've read enough of those, alright! Here's a more exact calculation: Per NASA website, the Earth's orbit varies from 149.5 to 149.7 million kilometres and Mars' orbit varies from 204.52 to 246.28 million kilometres. The closest the two planets approach is 204.52 - 149.7 = 54.82 million kilometres The farthest apart they get is 246.28 + 149.7 = 395.98 million kilometres Using 0.3 million km/sec (that's 300,000,000 metres/sec) as the speed of light, we get: 54.82 / 0.3 = 183 sec (3 minutes 3 seconds) 395.98 / 0.3 = 1320 sec (22 minutes 0 seconds) give or take...... What, no EXACTNESS? Speed of light isn't EXACTLY that nice round figure. Tsk, tsk. Precision is for others. True, but the unique criticsm is HIS... :-) True enough! But you can count on contest ops to figure a way to make that work. Use the transmission time as a 'buffer' of sorts. Not a problem. Ingenious use of the delay interval would permit pretty good contest rates. Of course the ability to work duplex would be a plus. I am non-plussed. With a 44 minute round-trip time you wouldn't need any sort of T/R switch, just solder some lands on a PCB to do the same job to go from Rx to Tx and back again. :-) For rag chewing, contacts between fixed nonpolar stations on each planet up to about 12 hours long are possible if the locations are just right at both ends. You could WEAVE the rag material, cut it to shape, sew it up in the time of those contacts... :- No problem, though, for someone who takes 48 hours to reply to this little Usenet-based QSO - and fails to reply in context of the thread at that. Think of it as "a buffer." :-) Or an intellect amplifier.... :-) "I just noticed that I was incorrect - all by myself!" Duh. Well, at least he NOTICED... He took the time out to look...away from Worked All Usenet logging... Heh. SO2R is just the beginning. Of course the reason no one - professional or amateur - has been awarded the Elser-Mathes Cup is because it requires operators at both ends of the QSO. Human space programs won't be in a position to do that for decades yet. Ah! One of the remarkable OBVIOUS statements! :-) And a brilliant one at that.....you need someone on the other end of a QSO? Sunnavagun! He could have called for the comic strip character "Obviousman!" Reminds me more of "Politenessman", from the old National Lampoon magazine.....with his steel hankie......remember him? I hearby nominate you for three or four votes in the Department of Redundancy Department. But not the Department of Mathematics. I keep having the crazy idea that a relative was working at JPL when they had that conversion error on a probe a while back. The one that failed due to the wrong constant or something, metric instead of english... Nah. Nah! Okay, now what is the PATH LOSS and what kind of Tx power is needed at each end for a given S:N ratio? Can you get by on amateur radio power levels? Without violating any of the regulations? How about Doppler Shift? How much? Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-) So far, you could hear a pin drop....... Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO, starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35 second transmission. Then the same for the return message. At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may need to know. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: European Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?
From: Mike Coslo Date: 8/11/2004 9:47 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. But...but...but...MIKE! Lennie's STATED position is that he's "...only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue" You wouldn't expect him to VIOLATE his own WORD, would you...?!?!...He's a PROFESSIONAL! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Leo wrote: On 10 Aug 2004 03:16:20 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 09 Aug 2004 23:45:24 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , Robert Casey writes: Okay, now what is the PATH LOSS and what kind of Tx power is needed at each end for a given S:N ratio? Can you get by on amateur radio power levels? Without violating any of the regulations? How about Doppler Shift? How much? Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-) So far, you could hear a pin drop....... Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. It doesn't work that way, Mike. I posed the challenge and it's up to others to answer...such as yourself. All the information is available to YOU. Won't take much searching to find it. No need for Keplerian tables or that other BS about "picking a position" since all you need is the MAXIMUM distance for path loss. Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information. They've been in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades. Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate. Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO, starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35 second transmission. Then the same for the return message. Illogical premise. Interplanetary QSOs have such long round-trip times that your paradigm isn't worth 20 cents. Think about it. Doppler shift isn't a big problem. RF power output IS. Think about that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it. At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may need to know. Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see- double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer in this shooting gallery. If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) |
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:47:10 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: snip How about Doppler Shift? How much? Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-) So far, you could hear a pin drop....... Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO, starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35 second transmission. Then the same for the return message. At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may need to know. Sorry, Mike, that wasn't my question. You could look it up yourself, though, if you're interested. - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:04 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
In article , Leo writes: On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that you have a Patent registered to you, in the area od radio. Interesting - mind if I ask what it was? U.S. # 3,848,191 - Pulse Compression Receiver with AGC, granted in 1974, assigned to RCA Corporation. Sole inventor on patent. Missed two other applications due to being too close to prior art. Basically it is a pulse processor and operating in an environment of many different pulses, only a few of which come close to being in synchronism with the system. The application was for SECANT, an R&D project for 4 years at RCA, the acronym standing for SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non-synchronous Techniques. SECANT was an aircraft collision avoidance system and in direct R&D competition with a modified helicopter station-keeping system done by Minneapolis-Honeywell. Both the RCA and Minnie-Honey systems were flight-tested successfully in PA at the (former) Naval Air Development Center (NADC). Flight testing local in PA, at the Patuxent River range, and at Key West, Florida, observed by FAA troops locally as well as USN and USA people. First air tested at Kern County Airport #7, Mojave, CA...("Mojave International" in fun) now the site for Scaled Composites, the first company to make it into space privately. SECANT worked at 1.6 GHz nominal bandcenter. The final version (of three) in 1974 used 8 SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) matched bandpass filters done on quartz substrates (done at Sommerville, NJ) at 1 MHz bandwidths centered between 55 and 64 MHz. I got to play with the SAW filters and the final version IF-detectors plus the pulse pre-processor. Al Walston, W6MJN, and I shared responsibility for the Tx and Rx parts. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was the engineering technical manager over the last two versions of SECANT and all of RIHANS, another R&D program, again working in L-band at the RF level. The U.S. government scuttled any more testing funding in 1974 for both the RCA and Minnie-Honey systems, opting for a less-tested ATC transponder modification which is now in use, but only by the air carriers and large executive aircraft. TCAS? (now TCAS II) Yup. MIT did their air testing in a couple of Piper Cherokees in MA. Lovely picture they had in a magazine flying over the 'Haystack' radome (unrelated project). RCA's SECANT was tested first on a hired DC-3, Piper Aztec, in Mojave in '71. [don't know what Minneapolis-Honeywell used] USN air testing was in a C-117 (military version of "Super DC-3"), Grumman S-2 Tracker, and Douglas RA twin jet...the latter sharing duty of testing the prototype GPSS then called NAVSTAR (or something like that). In PA, NJ, MD, and FL by the USN. It worked just fine. So did the Minneapolis-Honeywell system. Would have been interesting for the '74-'75 "electronic shootout" to see which system was the better. Not so. U.S. gubmint decided in favor of a largely untested system devised by highly-credentialled friends. ATCRBS became TCAS and that was that. Military doesn't use that system. MIT had friends in higher places to sway gubmint opinion. RCA Corporation began (well before WW2) as a place to hold U.S. patents and try to keep control on the then-new technology of radio. As a result, RCA built up a fantastic legal staff and pursued patent filings aggressively. Back in '74 the average cost of any electronic patent application cost about $6000, nearly all of it being taken up by the non-patent-office Search costs. Corporate employees of the lower levels would not get much chance to patent anything unless a corporation had a large legal staff. I was lucky in getting a sole patent award and don't sweat the other two at RCA nor the one multiple-inventor patent turn-down at Electro-Optical Systems (Xerox division). [sometimes good minds think alike! :-)] Very impressive - thanks for the summary. I'd never heard of the SECANT system before. That would have been quite a challenge back in '74 - all discrete components, no microprocessors, no CAD tools or circuit emulators....real hands-on design work. All discretes for sure, lots of prototype PCBs in the first two versions, all hand-wired on Douglas boards (not the aircraft company, but a then-new prototype PCB company in SoCal). All the RF plumbing used mainly SMA connectors and purchased uW components such as filters, couplers, etc. (we were short on time and R&D budgets are not extravagant). But...we DID have some CAE (although it was called "CAD" back then). RCA Corporate had COSMIC, Computer Optimization of Simple Microwave Integrated Circuits, and LECAP, the frequency- domain analysis for any kind of circuitry...a much simpler version of the original IBM ECAP. We did write some of our own programs once we got accounts on the corporate time-share net (second phase). I learned FORTRAN in '72 using Dan McCracken's book on it and eventually contributed six programs to the corporate program library. Was interesting and challenging! To say the least. Compter programming was pretty mystical back then. My exposure to Fortran came in college in '76 - the computer was an old Burroughs B6700 (IIRC), and was absolutely massive. While RCA Sommerville had just debuted their CMOS family and was (half-heartedly) promoting COSMAC processors, they were a bit ahead of time and facing the then-new Intel (and copycat Zilog) CP/M micros for business applications. At RCA EASD we had to produce quickly and went with discrete logic subsystems. Worked out quite well and Bernie Case (not a ham) got at least 3 patents on the threat-evaluation and tracking logic for SECANT, a couple more on RIHANS (River Inland Harbor Area Navigation System), a highly precise positioning system using shore station responders. That was tested in the Galveston, TX, area in '74 (whole group was there for the testing over 4 weeks). Following the NOAA survey team, the positioning accuracy was BETTER than even military GPS of the next decade. All that and massive amounts of multipath reflections from all the steel in dockyards, etc., in harbors. RIHANS worked in L-band also using low power RF pulses; range was only about 30 miles (to radio horizon) and that suited harbor and roads navigation very well. [it was so far back in time that ROMs were limited to 8 KBits of storage...:-) ] I remember those....worked with Rockwell's PPS-4 4-bit (!) microprossessor system way back when.... Too bad that RCA Corporation was sold to GE and most of the divisions parcelled out to other corporations. Was a heady time, much accomplished in electronics and radio in the 70s, fun days of pushing lots of performance envelopes. Most of the 3-decade- old CMOS ICs are alive and well in production at many other IC makers; Indianapolis division still makes color TV sets under the RCA logo although Thompson CSF owns that division now. It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc system..... :-0 No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW transmitters from plans? :-) :-) :-) Yes, they've announced (sometimes with herald trumpets) their fantastic Nobel-level accomplishments. Ave! :-) Ad infinitum. There remains an enormous area of electronics-radio exploration and experimentation for anyone who wants to venture out from the known, the already-accomplished a half century ago. Technologically and operationally, the rest of the radio world has long-since surpassed even the dreams of most amateurs. There's over 50 Million cell phones in use in the USA and every one of them is a tiny two-way radio running in the low microwave region. That's sneered at by the "radio pioneers" (of the latter-day saints) busy keeping morse code alive and unhealthy on HF. That particular technology has been paying the bills (and then some!) at the Leo household since 1985! Financed my incursion into this hobby, too! When every other radio service has either dropped morse code use or never considered it from the beginning, it doesn't say much for the pretend-ubiquitousness of that ancient mode. It was once a mainstream form of telecommunications - but that was a long, long time ago. Now, it's an interesting mode within the amateur radio hobby. and the odd covert military organization, perhaps. And Hollywood! It's an exciting future for those who care to break away from half-century old techniques and venture into largely-untried new areas. Only a few dare. That's how it was in the 1920s. By the 2020s it would seem that most amateurs want to recreate that time, to live a century back, and feel "safe" re-inventing wheels because they have all the knowledge recorded, all the successes and the failures of those early days. They can neglect the failures because they never did the same thing. Everything old is new again! 73, Leo |
On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: snip Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. It doesn't work that way, Mike. I posed the challenge and it's up to others to answer...such as yourself. All the information is available to YOU. Won't take much searching to find it. No need for Keplerian tables or that other BS about "picking a position" since all you need is the MAXIMUM distance for path loss. Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information. They've been in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades. Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate. Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO, starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35 second transmission. Then the same for the return message. Illogical premise. Interplanetary QSOs have such long round-trip times that your paradigm isn't worth 20 cents. Think about it. Doppler shift isn't a big problem. RF power output IS. Think about that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it. At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may need to know. Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see- double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer in this shooting gallery. If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) Catalyst: One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences. Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a catalyst, do you ? :-) 73, Leo |
Len Over 21 wrote:
RCA Corporation began (well before WW2) as a place to hold U.S. patents and try to keep control on the then-new technology of radio. As a result, RCA built up a fantastic legal staff and pursued patent filings aggressively. Back in '74 the average cost of any electronic patent application cost about $6000, nearly all of it being taken up by the non-patent-office Search costs. Corporate employees of the lower levels would not get much chance to patent anything unless a corporation had a large legal staff. I was lucky in getting a sole patent award and don't sweat the other two at RCA nor the one multiple-inventor patent turn-down at Electro-Optical Systems (Xerox division). I was an AMTS at the old RCA Sarnoff Lab in Princeton from 81 to 87. Got 11 patents there. Mostly television signal processing. That ended when GE raped and pillaged RCA about 15 years ago.... :-( |
In article , Leo
writes: On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:04 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip But...we DID have some CAE (although it was called "CAD" back then). RCA Corporate had COSMIC, Computer Optimization of Simple Microwave Integrated Circuits, and LECAP, the frequency- domain analysis for any kind of circuitry...a much simpler version of the original IBM ECAP. We did write some of our own programs once we got accounts on the corporate time-share net (second phase). I learned FORTRAN in '72 using Dan McCracken's book on it and eventually contributed six programs to the corporate program library. Was interesting and challenging! To say the least. Compter programming was pretty mystical back then. My exposure to Fortran came in college in '76 - the computer was an old Burroughs B6700 (IIRC), and was absolutely massive. Part of RCA Corporation's profit problems came in trying to compete with IBM's 360 series with the RCA Spectra 70 series. While the Spectra 70 had 12% of the mainframe market, the east coast major part of RCA's computerwerke didn't upgrade it with newer hardware all around. When IBM debuted their 370 series, that was IT. [RCA EASD made the terminals in Van Nuys, CA...not a single ROM in the monitor...characters were done via a special RCA tube with "mini-scanning" for them and the keyboard was a modified IBM Selectric...:-) ] By contrast, EASD had 2 Spectra 70s on the first floor of my group's building, right next to the group lab. Since a time-share connection hardware set cost (then) $50K, we had to dial-up Cherry Hill, NJ, and connect to the corporate computer the very long way around. Seemed silly at the time...the terminals were on the second floor of the same building. Well, the two mainframes made money on contract computing in the mid-70s, having two shifts busy, busy, busy. [blazing speed of 300 Baud on the corporate net using video terminal or 100 WPM on the Teletype KSRs...and file space limited to 256K bytes...:-) ] Group and Commercial Aviation section got together to contract with Tym-Share for better, faster service via Ann Arbor, MI, and dial-up. By contrast, this H-P Pavilion "low end" box (just purchased) does CPU clocking at 2+ GHz, 200 MHz data-memory fetch rate, 40 GB HD, and CD R-W deck. Modem can do 56 KBPS but lines limit that to about 49 KBPS on the average. Fabulous operation at those clockings! My own FORTRAN-developed programs (originally via a 20 MHz CPU clock machine) hardly indicate any hiccup in excuting masses of calculation. The Samsung 712 LCD flat display has NO distortion of the image and NO focus problems...as were starting to show up on the 6 1/2 year old CRT monitor before its horizontal sweep couldn't take it anymore. While RCA Sommerville had just debuted their CMOS family and was (half-heartedly) promoting COSMAC processors, they were a bit ahead of time and facing the then-new Intel (and copycat Zilog) CP/M micros for business applications. At RCA EASD we had to produce quickly and went with discrete logic subsystems. Worked out quite well and Bernie Case (not a ham) got at least 3 patents on the threat-evaluation and tracking logic for SECANT, a couple more on RIHANS (River Inland Harbor Area Navigation System), a highly precise positioning system using shore station responders. That was tested in the Galveston, TX, area in '74 (whole group was there for the testing over 4 weeks). Following the NOAA survey team, the positioning accuracy was BETTER than even military GPS of the next decade. All that and massive amounts of multipath reflections from all the steel in dockyards, etc., in harbors. RIHANS worked in L-band also using low power RF pulses; range was only about 30 miles (to radio horizon) and that suited harbor and roads navigation very well. [it was so far back in time that ROMs were limited to 8 KBits of storage...:-) ] I remember those....worked with Rockwell's PPS-4 4-bit (!) microprossessor system way back when.... Heh! 4-bitters! Actually, those are alive and well in the Microchip PIC microcontrollers...dozens and dozens of versions at very low cost and the PIC development program is free for download! Even with working for Rockwell, we didn't think much of the little 4-bitters there, running Intel micro development systems for the then-new 8051s. CP/M was king in PC circles until the Apple ][ started to edge in...and CP/M pretty much evaporated after the IBM PC debut at the beginning of the 1980s. Too bad that RCA Corporation was sold to GE and most of the divisions parcelled out to other corporations. Was a heady time, much accomplished in electronics and radio in the 70s, fun days of pushing lots of performance envelopes. Most of the 3-decade- old CMOS ICs are alive and well in production at many other IC makers; Indianapolis division still makes color TV sets under the RCA logo although Thompson CSF owns that division now. It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc system..... :-0 I was most surprised that they didn't push that at the time. Under the older Sarnoff they went push-push-push on broadcast quality videorecording and broadcast equipment in general. Their cameras set the standard for TV shooting. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was into their first TV recording efforts in the 1950s. No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW transmitters from plans? :-) :-) :-) Yes, they've announced (sometimes with herald trumpets) their fantastic Nobel-level accomplishments. Ave! :-) Ad infinitum. ...ad nauseum. :-) There remains an enormous area of electronics-radio exploration and experimentation for anyone who wants to venture out from the known, the already-accomplished a half century ago. Technologically and operationally, the rest of the radio world has long-since surpassed even the dreams of most amateurs. There's over 50 Million cell phones in use in the USA and every one of them is a tiny two-way radio running in the low microwave region. That's sneered at by the "radio pioneers" (of the latter-day saints) busy keeping morse code alive and unhealthy on HF. That particular technology has been paying the bills (and then some!) at the Leo household since 1985! Financed my incursion into this hobby, too! Good for you! Fascinating work, always something new coming up, pushing the performance envelopes farther and farther out. Transistor f_t limits are now beyond Ku-band (18+ GHz) and increasing. Direct-conversion cell phone receivers at 1 GHz and 2 GHz...unthought of two decades ago! When every other radio service has either dropped morse code use or never considered it from the beginning, it doesn't say much for the pretend-ubiquitousness of that ancient mode. It was once a mainstream form of telecommunications - but that was a long, long time ago. Now, it's an interesting mode within the amateur radio hobby. and the odd covert military organization, perhaps. And Hollywood! "Hollywood" makes its money on emotions and fantasies. While it might be good entertainment, it is waaaayyyyyy to far out for anything like reality. PCTA seem to make their thing on emotions and fantasies, too! It's an exciting future for those who care to break away from half-century old techniques and venture into largely-untried new areas. Only a few dare. That's how it was in the 1920s. By the 2020s it would seem that most amateurs want to recreate that time, to live a century back, and feel "safe" re-inventing wheels because they have all the knowledge recorded, all the successes and the failures of those early days. They can neglect the failures because they never did the same thing. Everything old is new again! Retread and (sometimes) retard... It's sometimes like a living U.S. Civil War re-enactment...old-fashioned weapons, old-fashioned clothes, old-fashioned tactics, but both sides DID have telegraphy! [whoopee for the morsemen] A half century ago, the U.S. military was NOT using any morsemen in long-distance 24/7 net communications. [that net was considerable and massive, far bigger than what State Department had] All these mighty macho morsemen in here just can't understand that. The fairy stories they were fed by "the league" by other morsemen. Keeps the re-enactment "alive" even though it is brain-dead. Beep beep. |
|
It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc system..... :-0 Makes you wonder why that videodisc system bombed, but DVD succeeded. Other than being "digital" they are not that different... No porn avaliable may have had something to do with it ;-) |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see- double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer in this shooting gallery. Not the answer I expected, but it'll do. Thanks much! If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) Correct! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Leo wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:41:14 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:47:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: snip How about Doppler Shift? How much? Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-) So far, you could hear a pin drop....... Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick a position and date for that position and tell us. Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO, starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35 second transmission. Then the same for the return message. At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may need to know. Sorry, Mike, that wasn't my question. You could look it up yourself, though, if you're interested. My bad Leo. I though since you were talking about hearing a pin drop that you knew the answers. As Rosanne Rosanadanna said... "Never mind". Nope - just the deafening silence.... But I did get an answer. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Leo wrote:
No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. By golly, "Leo", I think you're on to something! In other venues, Len might hold his own. Here, he has yet to become a beginner. Dave K8MN |
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:30:38 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: Leo wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:43:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) Catalyst: One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences. Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a catalyst, do you ? :-) Not even close, Leo I accomplished nothing by my question. I'm cold fusion, friend! My mistake, Mike - for a minute there, I thought that you might be trying to start something up, then step back and watch the fun..... Good to hear that you ain't that type! :-) We're *all* that type here Leo! Not at all, Mike - some engage in heated discussion and stand by their beliefs, others enjoy starting them up then running away - sorta like Usenet arsonists......well, you know the type :-) Actually, my point was that if we're going to bust Jim's chops about what appeared to be an error on his part, *we* should be able to back up that chop busting with some good hard data. I could work the problem out eventually, but I'm a dilettante at best in such matters. Well, he is traditionally the first one to jump on someone for 'being wrong' about something - anything, actually, no matter how trivial - and often only in his own opinion at that. Which is unlikely - he's made too many enemies with his "You're just wrong. I'm always right" attitude in the group for that to be an option. It is interesting to see the reaction when the tables are turned. You know that if he had have popped in and said "you're right, guys, I screwed up", this thread would have died out. Apparently, and quite unfortunately, that isn't possible for him to do - so he avoids the issue, and hopes it goes away. Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" ! He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here. When the time is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch! Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the subject of license fees, and other matters. And reading....... - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Makes you wonder why that videodisc system bombed, but DVD succeeded. Other than being "digital" they are not that different... When the various videodisc systems appeared, they all shared some common weaknesses. They couldn't record, they and the discs were big and expensive, the selection of movie titles was very limited. Most of all, you had to buy the discs. The first VCRs were a success primarily as a way of time-shifting favorite programs, avoiding commercials, and building up a library of favorite programming. The popularity of VCRs created the video rental store industry, which meant that you didn't have to buy every movie you wanted to see. Then mass production and changes in the movie industry reduced the cost of tapes, so that buying them became only a little more expensive than renting. Meanwhile, the music industry went from vinyl records to CDs and cassette tapes. So when DVDs appeared, the market was more than ready for them. When my early 1980s CD player finally gave up the ghose some time back, I got a player that does both CDs and DVDs. A twofer. No porn avaliable may have had something to do with it ;-) Actually that industry was greatly affected by the invention of camcorders, VCRs and now DVD players. A friend of mine says that much of modern electronics, from computers to digital cameras to the internet, is heavily driven by that particular industry. He has a whole list of humorous translations of various modern acronyms. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Leo wrote: No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. By golly, "Leo", I think you're on to something! In other venues, Len might hold his own. Here, he has yet to become a beginner. Pish off portly old ham. YOU show us How To Begin Being A Sociable HUMAN. You haven't even started that yet, let alone "beginning." Go play with your fancy I-can-download-firmware-on-the-Internet a la Star Trek Transporter. Have an oriongasm. Pbthbthbthbth... LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Leo wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:43:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) Catalyst: One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences. Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a catalyst, do you ? :-) Not even close, Leo I accomplished nothing by my question. I'm cold fusion, friend! My mistake, Mike - for a minute there, I thought that you might be trying to start something up, then step back and watch the fun..... Good to hear that you ain't that type! :-) We're *all* that type here Leo! Actually, my point was that if we're going to bust Jim's chops about what appeared to be an error on his part, *we* should be able to back up that chop busting with some good hard data. I could work the problem out eventually, but I'm a dilettante at best in such matters. Dear dilly Mike, What's your beef about "busting chops?" You opening a meat market? [specializing in ham stakes for ham burghers?] Hello? Newsflash: Rev. Jim MADE AN ERROR IN MATH. Nothing major. He no work for NASA, not IN space. Not life critical. Was simple matter to reach up for Almanac, go to page with basic planetary data, find minimum and maximum distances Earth to Mars, then use calculator to divide that by approximate speed of light. NOT a tuff thing at all. Simple. He got corrected. Correction corroborated. Where's the beef? [do you know the basic cuts for chops?] Is this some kind of IMAGE thing with you PCTA? You all have to be "right" even when you are wrong?!?!? You want Flame War over trivia? Go fight with Alex Trebek on Jeopardy and against Ken Jennings. Or work hard on your morsemanship, be a "real" ham! Recreate the past, do it again, and again, and again until you get it right! Pbthbthbthbth... LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:43:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: snip If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-) Catalyst: One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences. Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a catalyst, do you ? :-) Not even close, Leo I accomplished nothing by my question. I'm cold fusion, friend! My mistake, Mike - for a minute there, I thought that you might be trying to start something up, then step back and watch the fun..... Good to hear that you ain't that type! :-) We're *all* that type here Leo! Actually, my point was that if we're going to bust Jim's chops about what appeared to be an error on his part, *we* should be able to back up that chop busting with some good hard data. I could work the problem out eventually, but I'm a dilettante at best in such matters. Dear dilly Mike, What's your beef about "busting chops?" You opening a meat market? [specializing in ham stakes for ham burghers?] Don't want busted chops in my meat market! Hello? Newsflash: Rev. Jim MADE AN ERROR IN MATH. Nothing major. He no work for NASA, not IN space. Not life critical. Tell Leo about it. He seems to think it's worth pursuing even after Jim corrected himself. Was simple matter to reach up for Almanac, go to page with basic planetary data, find minimum and maximum distances Earth to Mars, then use calculator to divide that by approximate speed of light. NOT a tuff thing at all. Simple. He got corrected. Correction corroborated. Where's the beef? Check with Leo. And poor old Clara Peller is no longer with us. [do you know the basic cuts for chops?] No, I can carve a good turkey tho'. Is this some kind of IMAGE thing with you PCTA? You all have to be "right" even when you are wrong?!?!? You want Flame War over trivia? Go fight with Alex Trebek on Jeopardy and against Ken Jennings. Wouldn't that be cool if he posted in here? Thanks for the invitation anyway. Or work hard on your morsemanship, be a "real" ham! I am a real ham, despite my lack of morseosity. Recreate the past, do it again, and again, and again until you get it right! Pbthbthbthbth... Spill Pepsi on your keyboard? 8^) LHA / WMD - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
"Len Over 21" wrote A half century ago, the U.S. military was NOT using any morsemen in long-distance 24/7 net communications. In 1954 ("a half century ago") morse was the primary "long-distance 24/7 net communications" mode for the majority US Navy warships. Good luck on this one now! 73, de Hans, K0HB Master Chief Radioman, US Navy |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Leo wrote: No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out of your league. By golly, "Leo", I think you're on to something! In other venues, Len might hold his own. Here, he has yet to become a beginner. Pish off portly old ham. Sounds like you've finished off some port, old man. YOU show us How To Begin Being A Sociable HUMAN. After you, Alphonse. You haven't even started that yet, let alone "beginning." Go play with your fancy I-can-download-firmware-on-the-Internet a la Star Trek Transporter. Have an oriongasm. I have downloaded such firmware and I do play quite often with the Orion. I'll do as I choose. You do as you can. Why, by the way, don't you stop giving ORDERS? Pbthbthbthbth... Settle down, kindly old soul. You'll soon have your breath back. Dave K8MN |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" ! Lessee, he admitted error, and then worked at correcting it. That is a lot more than some in this group would do. My guess is that is about what to expect. Perhaps gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, a good act of contrition, and a month of bread and water and wearing of sackcloth would be in order? 8^) Morsemen don't DO that sort of thing. They are "superior." He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here. When the time is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch! Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the subject of license fees, and other matters. Being wrong on one thing does not mean you can't post on anything else. Right...but morsemen are ALWAYS right, regardless. Leo omitted mention of all those other things, like presidential politics, the space business, global economy and choo-choo trains. Professional amateurs who have a career in amateur radio seem to think that all who don't think like they think, "think." Do you "think" about it? Thounds thinky to me... LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" ! Lessee, he admitted error, and then worked at correcting it. That is a lot more than some in this group would do. My guess is that is about what to expect. Perhaps gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, a good act of contrition, and a month of bread and water and wearing of sackcloth would be in order? 8^) Morsemen don't DO that sort of thing. They are "superior." He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here. When the time is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch! Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the subject of license fees, and other matters. Being wrong on one thing does not mean you can't post on anything else. Right...but morsemen are ALWAYS right, regardless. Leo omitted mention of all those other things, like presidential politics, the space business, global economy and choo-choo trains. Mongo like choo choo! Professional amateurs who have a career in amateur radio seem to think that all who don't think like they think, "think." Do you "think" about it? I'll think about it and get back to you... I think. 8^) Thounds thinky to me... What's brown and sticky? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Leo writes: Well, he is traditionally the first one to jump on someone for 'being wrong' about something - anything, actually, no matter how trivial - and often only in his own opinion at that. Give us some examples, Leo. No examples yet. Which is unlikely - he's made too many enemies with his "You're just wrong. I'm always right" attitude in the group for that to be an option. The only enemies I know of here are people who have a problem with my differences of opinion, or with being corrected when they make a mistake. Would you rather I let the mistakes I notice go uncorrected? I missed that in my previous answer to Leo. What enemies? Lenover21 (and presumably AveryFineman) aren't too fond of Jim it would seem, And Brian would appear to be in that group. I'm assuming that Leo puts himself on that list too. So out of the group, we have three people that are Jim's "enemies" - four if you count one of Lenover21's other personalities. Also consider "nocwtest", "averyfine", and "lenof21", all of which have been used by Len here. "Lenof21" is still his, and I think the other two are as well. So that makes seven - five of whom are the same person...;-) The rest of us like Jim just fine, thankyouverymuch! I appreciate that, Mike. It is interesting to see the reaction when the tables are turned. Yes, it is. See below. You know that if he had have popped in and said "you're right, guys, I screwed up", this thread would have died out. My original post began "if my math is correct". One of the calculations was quite close (188 seconds) but the other was way off. So I corrected it. Apparently, and quite unfortunately, that isn't possible for him to do - so he avoids the issue, and hopes it goes away. Did you miss my correction post? He replied to it!!! I missed that one. Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" ! Dish what out? He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here. I read most threads here. But not all posts. Just don't have the time. I try to be assertive but not aggressive. That apparently infuriates some people. Particularly when they cannot refute or disprove my facts. Or when I refuse to back down from my opinions. When the time is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch! How can anyone "take control" of a thread? I'm not the most frequent or verbose poster here by a long shot. I simply post facts and opinions. And the occasional mistake. Which I have corrected. So what's the problem? He don't like ya. When you don't like a person, you hold them to an impossibly high standard. Well, maybe *he* does, but I don't. Funny, in a group where I have been accused of supporting all things I do not comment on, and not condemning "that which should be condemned so I'll drag this out. Me too. As if what others post is somehow my responsibility. Lenover21 made a mistake a week or so ago in which he said the first voice transmissions occurred in 1906. That was incorrect. No big deal, it was corrected I didn't notice Leo making "you can hear a pin drop" posts about that mistake. About that "tables are turned" thing - it's interesting to note Len's reaction to being corrected on that historic fact. Or when he wrote that he had *never* posted here as "averyfine" - and I Googled up some posts by him using that screen name... Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the subject of license fees, and other matters. Are any of the facts I have written about license fees incorrect? Are my opinions on license fees somehow unacceptable because of a calculation mistake? Would you approve of me more if I behaved like Len, "William", or Steve, rather than myself? I suspect that he would approve of you if you had the same opinions as Brian or Lenover21. At that point you could act however you wanted to. I suspect you are right. Would you rather I just shut up? twould appear! ;^) The only person I have *ever* seen tell someone else to shut up here on rrap was Len, in his classic "feldwebel" post to K8MN. And reading....... And posting. and bears....Oh My! hehe No, the guy who photographed the Bear bombers from the deck of a US aircraft carrier is W3RV. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 14 Aug 2004 00:36:02 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: snip The rest of us like Jim just fine, thankyouverymuch! So far, the 'rest of you' consists of you. You see anyone else jumping on the support bandwagon, Mike? I sure don't! snip He replied to it!!! Too bad you weren't able to understand the context of the reply......try again (sigh)...... snip I try to be assertive but not aggressive. That apparently infuriates some people. Particularly when they cannot refute or disprove my facts. Or when I refuse to back down from my opinions. Well, you're partly correct - you are trying.....very trying, actually...... :) When the time is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch! How can anyone "take control" of a thread? I'm not the most frequent or verbose poster here by a long shot. Just like this! Jim, you are too predictable.....:) There is no Jim. There is only anonymity. Not so. Use of special spacing establishes profundity. Evidence of great spiritual knowledge surpassing all professionalism. remainder of rhetorical BS and righteous indignation snipped...... 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Not so. Use of special spacing establishes profundity. Could it be that is the reason you so often use it in your own postings? Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: Not so. Use of special spacing establishes profundity. Could it be that is the reason you so often use it in your own postings? Dave K8MN I'm buying in to the idea in a huge way! Hi, hi! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com