John Smith wrote:
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!


Yup, that is the response I expected.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Ok, I will give you the real secret, get your grandson to put one
together for you. You can claim you did it, how will we ever know?

John

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


Yup, that is the response I expected.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I figured this out, this is Mac Amateur World! Kind of similar to Mac
Donalds World.

Oh look, there is the Mac 'Tenna--invented my amateurs. There is the
Mac Radio--invented by Mac Amateurs. There is the "Mac Amateur Desk"
invented by amateurs and, the Mac Chair....

Ohh my gawd, I have only heard about it!!! There is the Mac Internet
invented by Mac Amateurs with a Mac WebCam hooked up and running a Mac
Operating System (probably true, I expect this bunch to run
Macintoshes!!!) And, those are real Mac Applications running on it
(probably true again.) With a Mac Mouse, Mac Keyboard and Mac Monitor
(sad, but probably true again.)

And over there!!! A Mac Data Compaction algorithm invented by the
original "Mac Amateur", how exciting!

Yeppers! A real "Mac World" out there!

John

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


Yup, that is the response I expected.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Buzzard:

You more than justify my efforts...

John

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
cmd buzz off:

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

John


I see, so you are part of the 'ill-bred lot".

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Will you agree that a 56K phone modem, does indeed, transmit this data
rate with an audio bandwidth of ~300Hz to ~5000K, and if you do so
agree, how can you argue this cannot fit in a HF AM RF signal which
only goes 2.5K each side of center frequency??????????

Of course it can.

The question is whether the RF path will have characteristics
comparable to those of the telephone line.

Are you NOT imposing an audio frequency of AT LEAST a 5K bandwidth on
the rf carrier with normal speech?

No. Typical ham transceivers only need about 2.5 kHz of audio
bandwidth.

(actually, most quality
transceivers have a wider audio bandwidth than this which can be set
+/-) and if you agree you are indeed, how can you argue that 5K
bandwidth can carry a 56K data rate over a phone line--and NOT a hf rf
signal???? That looks insane to me?

It's a question of the characteristics of the RF path. Certainly there
are some paths that will support the amplitude- and phase- stable
requirements of the 56K modem - and some paths that won't.

On top of that is the fact that most RF paths aren't full duplex. How
fast is the 56K modem in half-duplex with transmit-receive switching?

The modem is NOT using the whole 5K bandwidth--necessarily, there is
compression into a narrower bandwidth which can and is generally
software controlled--if necessary (the modems software is a LOT
smarter than most give it credit for, especially in the case of the
old "onboard processor" and "hardware logic" USRobotics external
modems.

You need to explain to me why it even begins to look difficult to you
for me to be able to understand what you are asking?

As, I have to be missing something here...

You are. Do you think HF offers the same transmission characteristics
as a telephone line?

You know, I have not even looked to see on the web, but aren't tons of
people doing this right now as we newsgroup?

On telephone wires or HF radio?

I suppose you could actually use the rf signal as data carrier itself
and modulate it directly through on/off switching, as opposed to
modulating the rf carrier with the audio data carrier... but that
would take some heavy duty equip mods/revamps, if it didn't wipe out
the neighbors cable tv! grin

Think about this:
at 100 mhz if you can precisely control the EXACT amplitude of each
and every cycle of rf out the back end of the xmitter, you have a
virtual 100mbs data carrier... most are working here... 450 MHz?
1Ghz? 12Ghz?

Think about the stability of the RF path at HF.

... and of course, the receiver has to be able to decipher the
amplitudes of each cycle back to a data stream for the video card...

... this is the land where dreamers are...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: "Dee Flint" on Mon 4 Jul 2005 20:59

"K=D8HB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote

So here we are.

Yup, and no one has persuaded me it can't be done. I've only been
persuaded that we haven't figured out how yet. (Sorta reminds you,
doesn't it, of how those old-tymey hams must have felt when they were to=
ld
to take their party to "200 meters and below".) You, Jim, and Dee
bemoaning how hard it will be, and John raising the tantalizing notion
that we may only be a few "eureka!!!"s away from something workable.
Outside my area of competence, but I'll watch the dialog with interest.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Frommy understanding of John's comments, he is saying it can be done now
with current technology.

I've seen live, streaming video on my computer years ago, all
working through ONLY the 3 KHz bandwidth of my single telephone
line. There ARE thousands of examples. Today.

He does not however tell us how.

This newsgroup does not support binaries with the attendant
schematics, simplified diagrams, equations, etc., etc., etc.
There are dozens of BOOKS available "in the engineering
profession" (as well as purchaseable from Amazon.com) on the
subject.

He just chatters
on about "compressing it enough" without stating the degree of compression,
etc.

"In the engineering profession" (where I've been for decades)
lots of Design Reviews had "chatting." They also had arguments,
sometimes heated, where one would adamantly REFUSE to believe
in an explanation...! Senior type, titled, etc., etc., etc.
[several anecdotes could be inserted here but I digress...]
Sound familiar? :-)

INFORMATION compression is going on all the time in nearly ALL
communications media. [I use "information" rather than "data"
to avoid the emotional baggage associated with "lesser" forms
of amateur communications, "lesser" relative to the epitome of
all amateur radio modes (morse code).

Most wired telephone calls are digitized, compressed, re-
expanded on circuits to distant central offices. Modems
operating on telco lines (limited bandwidth of about 3 KHz)
do it locally. Webcams - at the arbitrary Coslo standard
of 7 frames per second or faster or slower - do that over the
same telco bandwidth. Wired telemetry of many and varied
forms coupled through telco circuits do that. All of those
operate in bandwidths almost exactly that of an amateur SSB
voice circuit.

Hey I'm all for the "eureka" when it happens but the problem is that it is
unpredictable.

Do you wish for EXACT dates of miracles? Scheduled epiphanies?
:-)

Or aren't you just being snarly for the purposes of winning
message points for yourself in this newsgroup?

Not only is it unpredictable in time but in the nature of
the breakthrough.

How can you say that, given that you are "in the engineering
profession?" Have you given up reading of the breakthroughs in
recent history of the "engineering profession?" They are many.

A retrospective:

1. Ed Armstrong was told his FM system won't ever be as good
as good old, practical, used-every-day AM (then all of a bit over
a decade old) and that he should give up. FM broadcasting got
very practical...evolved not only to binaural ("stereo") sound
(compatible with monaural) but also to carry an isolated,
independent sound circuit (such as "storecast"). It works.

2. Mobile FM was described as impractical, wouldn't work as good
as AM, but Link and Motorola said phooey to that and proved it
was good, beginning with police department two-way radios prior
to WW2. The U.S. military saw that, said great, lets do that for
everything from backpack walkie-talkies to tank radios. It works.

3. Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier modulation is inefficient,
impractical, too costly, too complex for amateur radio use said
the olde-tyme hamme old-fahrts. "You can't get me to believe it
works!" said many in private. It's now standard voice on HF. It
works.

4. You can't make an active amplifying device without vacuum or
gas said the olde-tyme tube makers. Three guys at Bell Labs
showed them different back in 1948, eventually won a Nobel Prize.
A new hire at Texas Instruments, not allowed a company vacation,
made the first integrated circuit during the plant close-down.
[Jack Kilby, who recently passed away after many many honors]
Integrated circuits are now a mainstay in all electronics (which
includes "radio"). [I am looking at a virtual 17-inch integrated
circuit called an "TFT flat panel display" with at least one
transistor junction per pixel as I write this] Solid state
devices work well.

5. It is impossible to send data through a 3 KHz bandwidth at
faster than 300 bits per second (300 Baud) said the literalist
lookers-at-only-conventional-modulation-simplistic-explanations.
Impossible! they kept saying at each stage of rate increases
to 1200, then 2400, then 9600, and finally to 56,000 bits per
second. Those all work fine. [56K modems are near bumping the
upper limit of Shannon's Law]

6. Olde-tyme experts involved with analog image transmission
insisted one needs much bandwidth to transmit video, at least
4.5 MHz for NTSC, 5.0 MHz for PAL. IT MUST BE THAT WIDE! they
shouted. MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group) said not quite
and proved it. The "Grand Alliance" (industry-broadcaster
association) evolved HDTV which carries 20 MHz analog bandwidth
video, quadraphonic sound, closed-captioning text with alternate
languages, and an optional isolated sound channel all in digital
WITHIN a 6 MHz bandwidth...the video having nearly double the
pixel resolution of old NTSC analog video. It works. Not only
that, it works with perfect clarity down to the minimum RF
signal level.

7. AT&T brought out "PicturePhone" in the 1960s. Rather wide
bandwidth but with some compression by slowing frame rate, it
evolved to work over standard telco lines (and limited bandwidth).
It failed, not from anything technical, just from customers
turning the picture OFF for privacy. It was withdrawn for
reasons of not producing a profit. After divestiture a number of
entrepreneurs tried various schemes of their own, but with
marginal acceptance in the market. One-way broadcast-like
"webcams" are the only result...but do allow streaming video
over dial-up, limited bandwidth telco lines connecting to the
Internet. "Slow-scan" works well technically, just ins't
accepted.

8. Good old reliable manual telegraphy was 56 years old in 1900,
mature industry that had spread worldwide. Average throughput
was perhaps 20 words per minute. Then teleprinters got developed
and standardization had begun. Teleprinting TOOK OVER the wired
manual morse code telegraph business and "telegrams" began being
sent by teleprinter. Morsemen were being "downsized" (out of work,
replaced by 60 word per minute machinery operable by non-
specialists). Radio saved them from finding new work. Electro-
mechanical teleprinters eventually evolved to 100 words per
minute in commerce, industry, and government. Then the electro-
mechanical teleprinters were themselves "downsized" by electronic
data transmission means, much faster, and with on-line encryption
for security.

9. You can't possibly put a two-way radio in a telephone handset
(along with image and data transmission) that works at microwave
frequencies cried the olde-tyme telephone experts...they will all
interfere with one another they echoed. The U.S. Census Bureau
said that two years ago the number of cellular telephone in the
USA had reached 100 MILLION subscribers. Cell phones are now a
part of our lives. They fit easily into a shirt pocket or purse.
They work well in a cell area.

10. You can't possible send thousands of digitized voices over
a single optical fiber cried the communications experts decades
ago. It isn't as good or practical as copper wire lines they
sang in chorus. Fiber-optic carrier systems now operate at
4 GHz bits per second and are self-repeating (amplification) by
means of a second optical "pump" wavelength. The longest carrier
line in the world goes from the UK through the Med through the
Indian Ocean, around southeast Asia and on up to Japan. It works.

11. You can't possibly put a mainframe computer in every home
said the experts of 1960. One expert even said that no more
than a dozen mainframes would do the entire job of computing
for the USA then. Today's personal computers in laptop size
have 100 times the clock rate, 1000 times (or more) mass memory
storage than the largest mainframe computers of 1960...and cost
less than $2000 each (for laptops, half that for desktops).
Those work very well...except for some operators of same.

12. You can't possibly put an entire 3-hour motion picture on
a single CD said the movie experts of 1970, citing the equal
impossibility of putting 6 hours worth of music on the same size
disk! The MPEG showed them how. Today DVDs are fast replacing
the older bulkier VHS tape cartridges and music CDs have taken
over from vinyl disc "LPs." All the major auto makers make
options for having DVD players for back-seat passengers; my wife
and I declined that option on buying a new Malibu MAXX two weeks
ago...the standard MAXX rear sound console with wireless headsets
(stereo) was good enough for us. The DVD works very well.

13. Todays ready-built amateur transceivers are more digital than
analog, "bells and whistles" are an easy task to add with a good
programmer and interface designer...can include memories, a separate
"split" VFO, digital signal processing, even a spectral display to
see signals on either side of what you are tuned to...all for less
than $4K (list) or slightly more if the entire "radio" is to be
controlled entirely by a personal computer. Imagine what the size
of those would be if done entirely in analog circuitry...couldn't
possibly fit on a desktop. Want squeaky-narrow bandwidths for that
109 year old style radiotelegraph signal? Easy, just use DSP, all
digital using a microprocessor operating at high clock rates.

All of the above happened within my lifetime. I watched some of it
happen even before being IN the engineering profession. My father
and father-in-law were both born in the year 1900...a year before
Marconi got his S across the Atlantic, three years before the
Wrights finally succeeded in sustained HEAVIER-THAN-AIR flight at
Kitty Hawk. They both watched the first humans walking on the
moon over live television in their lifetimes.

"Breakthroughs" are always happening. If you really pay attention
to the engineering profession you are "in," you would see that.
Those happen because a few humans have the curiosity, the
willingness
to TRY to make something new work. They are seldom disauded by the
self-propelled "experts" who say "it can't possibly work!"

Or, you can sit back in the recreation of yesteryear, championing
a 161-year-old primitive manual communication mode, getting all
kinds of nice certificates (suitable for framing) for becoming
expert at carrier-banging and pronounce judgements upon the
"improper" attitudes of others...in a recreational radio HOBBY.

"CW gets through when anything else will" - B. Burke

From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:03

K=D8=88B wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

So here we are.

Yup, and no one has persuaded me it can't be done. I've only been persu=
aded
that we haven't figured out how yet. (Sorta reminds you, doesn't it, of=
how
those old-tymey hams must have felt when they were told to take their pa=
rty to
"200 meters and below".) You, Jim, and Dee bemoaning how hard it will b=
e, and
John raising the tantalizing notion that we may only be a few "eureka!!!=
"s away
from something workable.

He also give a lot of solid technical ways in which this can be done, =
eh?

Coslonaut, this newsgroup is NOT an educational institution.
Binary files containing schematics, pictures, other diagrams
are not allowed here...along with PPT files and other slide
stuff necessary to TEACH the iggorants.

Outside my area of competence, but I'll watch the
dialog with interest.

Hey, Hans, ignorance is not a crime!

The Coslonaut has intimated so, demanding an Instant Education
into Information Theory in as few words as possible.

Note that Jim brought up an
*actual* method of trying to do a lot of BW using 256 or more phase
angles that are decoded by the receiving station.

Tsk, he should write a Paper on that and submit it somewhere.

[harf!]

That is not likely to
work at HF, but a simplified version of this is used for some satellite
comms.

So, what do you "think" makes a 56,000 bit per second modem
work over 3 KHz bandwidth telephone lines?

"Some satellite comms?" Which "some?" Be specific. The
geosynchronous orbit positions for communications satellites
have all been filled three years ago.

they (see my link in my post to Jim) note that QPSK is more
reliable - or at least suffers less from link degradation - same thing,
than 8PSK. But there is some theory there that can be discussed.

There are hundreds and hundreds of other sources for THEORY
available for free over the Internet, ranging from simple
to math-heavy complex. You choose as you wish for YOUR
personal education.

And as for "bemoaning", I have been asking for something based in
solid theory since early in this thread. Most of what I have gotten in
return is that I am an olde tyme ham (untrue) stuck on CW with my Bug
(paraphrased, but laughably untrue), and topic shifted to DRM voice
(technically working, but beside the point). That ain't substance.

Do you think every single posting in here is a "judgement on
your technical competence?!? How long have you had this
paranoic compulsion? Seek help.

DRM voice AND music is NOT "beside the point." It works.
On HF. Can be on LF through VHF. It has been working for
five years, successfully. Its future will be determined by
the shortwave broadcasting market (not a lucratie one since
the beginning of radio) listeners.

DRM uses both information compression and digital signal
processing to shape its spectral content into a 12 KHz
maximum bandwidth. The same principles can squeeze voice
only into a 3 KHz bandwidth.

The information compression and digital signal processing
is NOT an easy-to-digest subject. It requires many hours of
study to begin to get started knowing what it is about. You
want simplistic solutions in single messages, then become
emotionally upset when you don't get them. Tsk.

What you have for viability, for proof, is that there are
MANY different methods to send good communications through
limited bandwidths. Those have been named. The next step is
up to you, whether you are sincere in a desire to learn or
not. Nobody is going to waste their personal time and energy
giving you a FREE education. You have NOT earned that yet.

bit bit

From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:36

K=D8=88B wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote

Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF
without exceeding reasonable band widths.

So, fit it into 3KHz, if that will be legal. John's system is
forthcoming soon. Live video will be broadcast on HF, probably in a few
months.

The Coslonaut bragged over reaching "the threshold of space" last
year. It is now nearly mid-summer and there are no signs of his
amazing feat (for which he wanted much praise) announced last
year and going where other hams have gone before.

Now the CEO-effective of Coslonautics wants a FREE education
of live, streaming, theater-quality moom pitchas over HF...when
he can't seem to grasp the fundamentals of how 56K modems work.

Weird science in here. Tsk.

Coslonaut, suck up a flaggon of Fed Std ALE before you get lost
in your own snarly rhetoric. You need some downers of some kind.

bit bit

From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:46

John Smith wrote:

I'm willing to help you with the initial experiments. In fact, in the
interest of the furtherance of Ham radio, science, and mankind, I have
challenged you to produce such a system.

Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold
of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio
balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no
flight, no tests, no words.

"Up up and awaaayyyyy....!"

We are all awaiting your famous flight to advance ham radio,
science and mankind in general.

Yawn....

bit bit

N2EY:

First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate
transmitter and receiver. The second modem can be a USR internal if
you don't have two serial ports for externals.

To run duplex with one modem, there is some kind of patch device they
used to keep the receiver output from getting on the mic input of the
transmitter (but the modem had simultaneous access to both)--and for
the life of me, I can't remember what it was called, first time I had
ever seen one. When I get a chance, I will ask about it. You might
know what it is/was?

Second, it works, build one--or--draw it on paper and decide it does
not work.

I am on to other things, I got tired of webcams years ago. Don't even
video chat on irc, MSN Messenger, ICQ messenger or yahoo messenger
much anymore. And that is much easier than "Mac Amateur IM."

I can tell, this argument will shortly switch to rules and
regulations, it always does, and I have no interest in having such
recited to me. Expect only my bad nature in return.

I didn't do the hardware or even know the "true nature" of the signal
which comes out of that modem and hits the phone line or a mike in. I
just toyed with the software and watched it work--it "lived" in my
garage for a year or so.

I am into my "universal translator" these days and trying to set up to
chat fluently with the russians...

I think the russian girls are kind of cute... grin

John

wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Will you agree that a 56K phone modem, does indeed, transmit this
data
rate with an audio bandwidth of ~300Hz to ~5000K, and if you do so
agree, how can you argue this cannot fit in a HF AM RF signal which
only goes 2.5K each side of center frequency??????????

Of course it can.

The question is whether the RF path will have characteristics
comparable to those of the telephone line.

Are you NOT imposing an audio frequency of AT LEAST a 5K bandwidth
on
the rf carrier with normal speech?

No. Typical ham transceivers only need about 2.5 kHz of audio
bandwidth.

(actually, most quality
transceivers have a wider audio bandwidth than this which can be
set
+/-) and if you agree you are indeed, how can you argue that 5K
bandwidth can carry a 56K data rate over a phone line--and NOT a hf
rf
signal???? That looks insane to me?

It's a question of the characteristics of the RF path. Certainly
there
are some paths that will support the amplitude- and phase- stable
requirements of the 56K modem - and some paths that won't.

On top of that is the fact that most RF paths aren't full duplex.
How
fast is the 56K modem in half-duplex with transmit-receive
switching?

The modem is NOT using the whole 5K bandwidth--necessarily, there
is
compression into a narrower bandwidth which can and is generally
software controlled--if necessary (the modems software is a LOT
smarter than most give it credit for, especially in the case of the
old "onboard processor" and "hardware logic" USRobotics external
modems.

You need to explain to me why it even begins to look difficult to
you
for me to be able to understand what you are asking?

As, I have to be missing something here...

You are. Do you think HF offers the same transmission
characteristics
as a telephone line?

You know, I have not even looked to see on the web, but aren't tons
of
people doing this right now as we newsgroup?

On telephone wires or HF radio?

I suppose you could actually use the rf signal as data carrier
itself
and modulate it directly through on/off switching, as opposed to
modulating the rf carrier with the audio data carrier... but that
would take some heavy duty equip mods/revamps, if it didn't wipe
out
the neighbors cable tv! grin

Think about this:
at 100 mhz if you can precisely control the EXACT amplitude of each
and every cycle of rf out the back end of the xmitter, you have a
virtual 100mbs data carrier... most are working here... 450 MHz?
1Ghz? 12Ghz?

Think about the stability of the RF path at HF.

... and of course, the receiver has to be able to decipher the
amplitudes of each cycle back to a data stream for the video
card...

... this is the land where dreamers are...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE