John Smith wrote:


Besides, what ham worth his 2+KW rf signal doesn't have a full
coverage communications transceiver with all the xmit blocked freqs
removed and the radio "opened up?" Yet is quick to point a finger
over at a CB'er...

So percentage of those hams with their rigs 'opened up' transmit on
frequencies outside the ham bands? What percentage of those cbers' with
their rigs 'opened up' transmit on frequencies outside the cb band?

Mike:

Wealthy man, setting the ten hams up in existence with webcams on
their rigs and letting them claim they invented the internet?

(Hey, who really did invent the internet, Al Gore or hams--frankly I
believe Al Gore more!)

Krist, equipment manufacturers are already abandoning hams, your next
transceiver will be made by "Cobra", they can supply you with ham
rigs--they are already manufacturing CB rigs!

Just consider it "radio welfare" for hams. Your "entitlement." grin

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
KØHB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


Hey I'm all for the "eureka" when it happens but the problem is
that it is unpredictable. Not only is it unpredictable in time but
in the nature of the breakthrough.



That's what makes ham radio some damn much fun! In my profession
role I can send a team of engineers off with some marketeers
scribbling and know that within 12-18 months I'll be shipping
product. Bnt ham radio is not so predicable --- we get these
delightful surprises from unexpected places.

Some like APRS and PSK-xx gain traction and thrive in a niche,
others like AX.25 packet radio and 2-meter autopatches which
blossom like an Independence Day firework, then fizzle to a few
sparks on the ground after a short period of glory.

Then there are a few genuine "revolutions" which fundamentally
change the nature of amateur radio. We're about due for one of
those.

More so than that, Hans. This would be a real breakthrough!

Bandwidth is a precious commodity. That we are looking at a method
of transmission that breaks Shannon's law is one thing, but here is
a method that will allow us to send video at frequencies that are
less than their original needed bandwidth!!!!! If that isn't a
revolution, I don't know what is!

"John" should be thankful for my gauntlet that I tossed him. He will
be a *wealthy* man after his system is in place and working!

I mean we do all know why there is more bandwidth available as the
frequency is increased, no? No change in the *really* basic laws
governing bandwidth, correct? John's method, upon successful
completion, means that with simply using a personal computer, we
will be able to stuff immense amounts more data into all the
available bands. The problems of bandwidth squeeze will go away, and
quickly!

What is most amazing is that a lot of engineers and programmers have
been working on this problem for a long time, and now an anonymous
poster in a newsgroup has figured out how to do it - with a PC and a
sound card no less. Amazing indeed....

I'll be proud just to be proven wrong on such a momentous moment in
communications history.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: "Dee Flint" on Mon 4 Jul 2005 21:04


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

300 baud is ridiculous, in Dee's first post mentioning 300 baud I tossed
it out the window--that was fine up to about 1985, then only the mentally
challenged continued to run 300 baud modems!

Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF
without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things,
not just video, that would be nice to do.

How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate.

Not DIRECTLY related. :-) Look to the 56K modem that most folks
use to connect to the ISPs now. Those work over about a 3 KHz
bandwidth limit.

That 56K modem is capable of 56,000 bits per second. If that was
carried on an AM carrier, then it would require 112 KHz bandwidth
minimum. Using SSB techniques it would be 56 KHz bandwidth
minimum. Yet it works in THREE KILOHERTZ BANDWIDTH. HOW?

You are "in the engineering profession." You explain it to
yourself. Then you, as an amateur extra can explain it to
these other radio experts in here.

Here's a hint: Those 56K modems use a combination of amplitude
and phase modulation of a carrier...and do it at at least 8
discrete levels of amplitude and phase. Obviously it works.
All you need to do is rid yourself of the old AM double SB
concepts (even the SSB concepts) and look deeper.

John Carson of AT&T showed the basic mathematics for AM, PM, and
FM way back in 1915. All you need to do is work with some
basic series equations and solve the combination of AM and PM.
That sort of thing is done "in the engineering profession."
Where you are.

"300 Baud" (or 300 bits per second) is way slow by comparison.
Ordinary LSB AM of an audio carrier can do it within the 3 KHz
telco lines. Yet the 56K modems are wayyyyy faster.

Once, you, as "in the engineering profession," solve it, you
will have AN answer, one of several possibilities for
increasing throughput rate in a very limited bandwidth. Aid your
ham compadres with your answer when you get done. Comprende?

de nada...

bit bit

Troll.....

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

Wealthy man, setting the ten hams up in existence with webcams on
their rigs and letting them claim they invented the internet?

(Hey, who really did invent the internet, Al Gore or hams--frankly I
believe Al Gore more!)

Krist, equipment manufacturers are already abandoning hams, your next
transceiver will be made by "Cobra", they can supply you with ham
rigs--they are already manufacturing CB rigs!

Just consider it "radio welfare" for hams. Your "entitlement." grin

John


I'm getting a vision here--imagine if Cobra manufactured a great ham rig;
all except for the fact that it was NOT easily modifiable...locked up
tight...

Kim W5TIT

John Smith wrote:

Mike:

You are pretending you could build one, trust me, I know...

Or vice versa.

This is your chance to prove me wrong.

Gotta be large, legal, and live. 7 fps is considered the least number
that will give you something that is considered "movement".

Or are you trying to tell me that the thing will only be able to do stills?

- Mike KB3EIA -

cmd buzz off:

Occasionally there are good reasons for a nice name call, such as in
your case...

John

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Len:

Keep a stiff upper lip man, only poor breeding reduces one to name
calling and personal attacks--they seek to include you among their
ill-bred lot.

Says one who engages in name calling.

Mike:

I just did better than that, I have given you enough rope until you
have gone on and proved yourself an "argumentive nut."

Do a google, somewhere out there others have duplicated the work, I am
sure, it just isn't that easy to come up with something all that
original. Someone else has done it and probably created a webpage
about it. I came here for personal pleasure, and you are NOT my idea
of it...

I will let others now tell you why this can be done easily, I have run
out of patience with you.

Besides that, I have seen your type before, after someone practically
builds one and sticks it in your hand, you turn around to the world
and claim you "invented" it, I see you coming... ROFLOL

You are a broken record of "it's impossible!" Suck it up man, it
ain't!

John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

Mike:

You are pretending you could build one, trust me, I know...

Or vice versa.

This is your chance to prove me wrong.

Gotta be large, legal, and live. 7 fps is considered the least
number that will give you something that is considered "movement".

Or are you trying to tell me that the thing will only be able to do
stills?

- Mike KB3EIA -

troll?

Oh yeah. The definition of a troll here is someone who fails to agree
with a bunch of ARRL monks chanting ancient doctrine... blah!

John

"Lloyd 2" NotRoger@Glendale wrote in message
...

Troll.....

Now what fool would build a radio like that? Manufacturers are out to
make a buck, else they eventually disappear... if they spend their
money attempting to champion "control freak hams" they can't be
competitive in the market!

Besides, what ham worth his 2+KW rf signal doesn't have a full
coverage communications transceiver with all the xmit blocked freqs
removed and the radio "opened up?" Yet is quick to point a finger
over at a CB'er...

And, unless you pot the whole damn thing in epoxy, what would ever
make it "locked up tight?"

John

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

Wealthy man, setting the ten hams up in existence with webcams on
their rigs and letting them claim they invented the internet?

(Hey, who really did invent the internet, Al Gore or hams--frankly
I
believe Al Gore more!)

Krist, equipment manufacturers are already abandoning hams, your
next
transceiver will be made by "Cobra", they can supply you with ham
rigs--they are already manufacturing CB rigs!

Just consider it "radio welfare" for hams. Your "entitlement."
grin

John


I'm getting a vision here--imagine if Cobra manufactured a great ham
rig;
all except for the fact that it was NOT easily modifiable...locked
up
tight...

Kim W5TIT