From: on Jul 1, 12:23 pm


wrote:
I thought it might be neat to get a ham license
in addition to the Commercial First 'Phone of 1956. Got up to
8 or 9 WPM and wondered what the hell I was wasting all that time
for?

Thank you for confirming something I have suspected for a long time
now, Len.

What...you've NEVER seen my statement BEFORE? :-)

Do the math. 1959 was how long ago? FORTY-SIX years.

Let's see...in 1959 I was three years from leaving a MAJOR
HF communications complex, a part of ACAN that had existed
since 1942 and had changed its name to STARCOM. Worldwide
network of HF stations...running TTY and Voice...NO "CW."
Big Time in HF.

So, I'm supposed to get into the "cutting edge of amateur
technology" by LEARNING/TESTING FOR RADIOTELEGRAPHY?!?!?

Wow...talk about being BRAIN DEAD in PA!

And now..."you've JUST suspected it?" :-) :-) :-)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[to use a message device beloved by your buddie, the TN
Talibanian...who does that frequently]

Class D CB was a year old back in 1959, I had a nice,
conversion-finished Austin-Healey sports car in Greater L.A.
which then had a population of about 6 million and was
considered to be the aerospace capital of the USA doing high-
tech electronics, was seriously considering changing my
major from illustration to engineering...and I was "supposed"
to be REGRESSING TO RADIOTELEGRAPHY in order to show
"dedication and committment to the ham community"?!?!?!?!?

Wow, yeah, I could "get my very own radio station" and get
"my very own callsign" as a radio amateur!!! I was already
a professional in radio-electronics and had spent three full
years doing HF radio communications in the military. Ptui.
I went to Henry Radio in L.A. and bought a Johnson Viking
Messenger CB that year. Worked great in the aluminum-body
Austin-Healey. Got my "very own callsign" (11W3725)...
BWAHAHAHAH...as if that 'meant' anything.

GAVE UP any thought of "showing dedication and committment
to some amateur community" by learning RADIOTELEGRAPHY as
"cutting-edge technology" in 1959. I should learn morse
just to "talk to the rest of the world?" Been there, done
that 24/7 already.

...and you "just suspected it!" Just HOW LONG does it take
to close the synapses in your mind, whiz kid?

By the way, how many children have you parented?

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the
sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get
it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that
can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.


Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking on the
same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband internet
connection, I've seen some material that still takes a noticeable time to
download.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've heard
about a digital image transmission mode.


Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind) digitally
encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will occasionally jerk and
pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud for the HF bands so as not to
consume too much bandwidth, that would become even jerkier.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB or
FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now inexpensive, and
fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows the
inherent problems.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the
sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get
it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that
can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.



Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking on the
same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband internet
connection, I've seen some material that still takes a noticeable time to
download.


Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've heard
about a digital image transmission mode.



Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind) digitally
encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will occasionally jerk and
pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud for the HF bands so as not to
consume too much bandwidth, that would become even jerkier.

Very true.

Accepted minimum rate for a recognizable "talking head" type video is
32Kbit/second.

I made a test jpg image @ 640 by 480, level 5 (unacceptable for me, but
others may find that okay) Typical scene, some amateurs sitting around a
radio, no large expanses of sky. It was 553.6 Kbits.

Assuming that the transmission rate would be similar to Packet radio at
..3Kbit/second it is obvious that video would be impossible to do live,
and grossly impractical to do as say an mpeg.

That 640 by 480 jpeg might be within the realm of feasibility at just
around 31 minutes. Note that this does not include error checking lags.
And there will be errors.

Note that these are very rough calculations.


Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB or
FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now inexpensive, and
fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -


I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows the
inherent problems.

Yeah, like I said 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee:

My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot
tell the difference.

If I send perfect video, encrypted off a DVD you will indeed notice
that it slows, pauses and is not acceptable for broadcast--however, if
you encrypt the sound to mp3 and the video to avi it becomes childs
play for anyone who is technically savvy and results in video and
audio which is magnitudes faster than SSTV.

Get away from these ancient amateurs who have gone blind and ask where
it has "ALREADY BEEN BEING DONE FOR A DECADE!!!"

Standing there looking stupid is no way to go through life girl!

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width
to be practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and
shows a total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically
possible and therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform
others and, the sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in
general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud.
To get it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption
techniques that can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as
the analog method of SSTV.


Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking
on the same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband
internet connection, I've seen some material that still takes a
noticeable time to download.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.


Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind)
digitally encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will
occasionally jerk and pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud
for the HF bands so as not to consume too much bandwidth, that would
become even jerkier.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than
SSB or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows
the inherent problems.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Michael Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the sorry
state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one megabyte
picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get it down to
seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that can reduce the
data by a 1000 fold.

break

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB
or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

Analog SSTV is obsolete, as is SSB clearly, FM might be.

Obselete doesn't mean useless

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to begin
and what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

.... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the same
boat and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such
things...

.... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested in
video conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable and
even lack the basic concept of how it is done!

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width
to be practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and
shows a total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically
possible and therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform
others and, the sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in
general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud.
To get it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption
techniques that can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as
the analog method of SSTV.



Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get
the bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still
talking on the same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast
broadband internet connection, I've seen some material that still
takes a noticeable time to download.


Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.



Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind)
digitally encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will
occasionally jerk and pause. If you have to slow it down to 300
baud for the HF bands so as not to consume too much bandwidth, that
would become even jerkier.

Very true.

Accepted minimum rate for a recognizable "talking head" type video
is 32Kbit/second.

I made a test jpg image @ 640 by 480, level 5 (unacceptable for me,
but others may find that okay) Typical scene, some amateurs sitting
around a radio, no large expanses of sky. It was 553.6 Kbits.

Assuming that the transmission rate would be similar to Packet radio
at .3Kbit/second it is obvious that video would be impossible to do
live, and grossly impractical to do as say an mpeg.

That 640 by 480 jpeg might be within the realm of feasibility at
just around 31 minutes. Note that this does not include error
checking lags. And there will be errors.

Note that these are very rough calculations.


Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than
SSB or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -


I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows
the inherent problems.

Yeah, like I said 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

Too bad you couldn't have tapped into the 300 KWe out of each of
the 16-cylinder marine diesels running generators at Kashiwa in
1954.

Just for clarification:

300 kW = 402 horsepower (assuming 100% efficiency).

Typical 200A 120/240 electric service = 48 kW

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to begin and
what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the same boat
and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such things...

... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested in video
conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable and even lack
the basic concept of how it is done!

John


OK, SHOW US THE MATH that it can be done on HF within 300 baud. We've
already got real time video with audio on VHF and higher but show me it can
be done. Explain in detail the encryption/decryption method. And so on.

As an engineer, I can follow the math if you can post it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

The only person talking 300 baud is you, I told you to throw away that
300 baud modem and get a decent one (or revamp an old phone modem to
your needs.)

Since you didn't even understand that, you certainly won't grasp the
rest...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to
begin and what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the
same boat and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such
things...

... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested
in video conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable
and even lack the basic concept of how it is done!

John


OK, SHOW US THE MATH that it can be done on HF within 300 baud.
We've already got real time video with audio on VHF and higher but
show me it can be done. Explain in detail the encryption/decryption
method. And so on.

As an engineer, I can follow the math if you can post it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

The only person talking 300 baud is you, I told you to throw away that 300
baud modem and get a decent one (or revamp an old phone modem to your
needs.)

Since you didn't even understand that, you certainly won't grasp the
rest...

John

Well it just happens to be against the rules to use higher than 300 baud on
HF so that is the limit that the data/video/audio signal must fit within.
There is a very good reason for that limit. The higher the baud rate, the
greater the bandwidth required, and the fewer users can fit on the band.
And eventually you hit a baud rate where the required bandwidth is such that
one signal won't stay within the upper and lower band edges.

Now if you're talking VHF, it's already been done and your "bright, new
minds" are a day late and a dollar short.

Since you don't understand that, you certainly won't grasp the rest....

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE