|
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in Ye gawds Hans, no 115vac until you were 8-9 years old??! That would have been in the 1958-59 timeframe and REA had just gotten to your neighborhood then?? WTF . . ?!! Or were you in Guatemala?? We got REA in the summer of 1954 when I was 14 years old. Running water too. (I was 8 or 9 when I learned Morse.) 73, de Hans, K0HB There were a lot of rural areas like that. I lived on a farm in Iowa from the age of 6 months to 10 years old and there was no electricity or running water there. It was kerosene lamps and carry water from the pump. There were electrical lines in the area, just not to our farm. And from the numbers above, I see that I am about 10 years younger than Hans. Hey Hans, looks like there's a bunch of city slickers in here! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Been following this thread with increased interest....just have to throw in my two cents worth. Years ago.,..must have been in the mid to late 50s I would spend time with my Aunt Kay and Uncle Frank. They lived in the old original family home in Leetonia Ohio. No indoor plumbing, no heat, a shed for the Model T that still ran, and a special place with the Sears catalog. Winters were the most interesting...with the feather beds and pillows and quilts so thick it would bury my little body so deep I looked like I was part of the bed. Frozen bed pans, contemplation of the ''quick'' run to the Sears catalog shed in the middle of the night. Brrrrrrrrrrrr...... And yes I had to walk to school ....but it was only a mile or so. Dan/W4NTI Well I did get to ride a bus (except when roads were really bad) but had that same "quick run" decision to make in the middle of the (cold) winter nights. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote and a special place with the Sears catalog. Those shiny pages were hell! Always loved it when mom bought a couple lugs of peaches for canning. Those tissue-like wrappings were a wonder to use. Always thought that in heaven all the outhouses must be equipped with peach wrappers year-round, even when peaches were out of season. (Maybe peaches are always "in season" in heaven?) Winters were the most interesting...with the feather beds and pillows and quilts so thick it would bury my little body so deep I looked like I was part of the bed. My wife is a city girl. After we were married we spent some time (in February) visiting the folks on the farm. First morning it was a wonder to see her hurrying to get dressed before parts were frozen. Then I asked her to toss me my shirt and trousers and I demonstrated how to get fully dressed BEFORE crawling out from under the quilt! 73, de Hans, K0HB Yup the only way to get dressed in the old farm house. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dan: Now I ask you, "What boob would use SSTV?" A webcam on a computer, compressing and digitizing the video and then converting to an audio signal and finally delivering it to a transceiver, to be picked up and decoded at the other end and fed to a soundcard/computer monitor produces a MUCH clearer sharper and more fps... SSTV is for dinosaurs!!! Wake up, it is already 2005! John If you want to transmit images on HF at this time only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be practical. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... "Kim" wrote in message m... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Kim W5TIT I'm sorry.....knowing full well she has me deep sixed, I just have to comment..... What the heck is SCTV? Is that a TV show? Or maybe she means Slow Scan TV?? SSTV.......Hmmmmm. Then...."APRS if that can be considered digital". Amazing.....and she has a license? Amazing. Dan/W4NTI |
From: "K0HB" on Thurs 30 Jun 2005 17:39
wrote in Ye gawds Hans, no 115vac until you were 8-9 years old??! That would have been in the 1958-59 timeframe and REA had just gotten to your neighborhood then?? WTF . . ?!! Or were you in Guatemala?? We got REA in the summer of 1954 when I was 14 years old. Running water too. (I was 8 or 9 when I learned Morse.) 73, de Hans, K0HB Oh, my, a numbers coincidence. Gee whiz, in late summer of 1954, Army station ADA started moving to its new site NW of Tokyo. Former airfield about one by two miles in size. Running water and everything but the 600 KWe generators (two always running, two spares) supplied the electric power. Barracks, mess, etc., in a converted hangar at one corner of the field. Surrounded by farmers. Five years later 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? Class D CB had arrived in 1958. I was living in the (then) third-largest city in the USA with plenty of folks to talk to out of my '53 Austin-Healey sports car. I'd never "worked CW" (on-off keying radiotelegraphy) in the Big Leagues of HF communications...and would never be required to do that again. Why mess with then OLD requirements just to please a bunch of olde-fahrt radiotelegraphers playing with their hobby and very much controlling the ARRL? I'm still living in a big urban area, now the second-largest city in the USA, have done computer-modem communications for 21 years (come December), the Internet has been public for 14 years, and we've got personal cell phones on 1 GHz that fit in a pocket and have text and image capabilities. Both my PC and my wife's each have MORE computing power and memory storage than the largest mainframes of a quarter century ago. The Internet reaches around the world with NO fading/distortion/outages from the ionosphere. All these AMATEUR radio whizzers say I "MUST" learn morse code to pass that (Nobel laureate level?) TEST in order to "show dedication and committment to the 'amateur community.'" :-) insert the sound of Bill the Cat making pbthththth sounds Gotta love these olde-fahrts longing for the "pioneer days of radio" (when Kode was King) that they will NEVER ever be a part of... :-) |
wrote We got REA in the summer of 1954 when I was 14 years old. Running water too. (I was 8 or 9 when I learned Morse.) 73, de Hans, K0HB Oh, my, a numbers coincidence. Gee whiz, in late summer of 1954, Army station ADA started moving to its new site NW of Tokyo. At 14 years old I didn't much give a rats ass about the fact that an Army radio station was moving to a different spot in Japan. (Come think of it, I still don't give a rats ass.) I was much more excited about getting electric lights in our farm buildings and home. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
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 "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dan: Now I ask you, "What boob would use SSTV?" A webcam on a computer, compressing and digitizing the video and then converting to an audio signal and finally delivering it to a transceiver, to be picked up and decoded at the other end and fed to a soundcard/computer monitor produces a MUCH clearer sharper and more fps... SSTV is for dinosaurs!!! Wake up, it is already 2005! John If you want to transmit images on HF at this time only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be practical. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... "Kim" wrote in message m... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Kim W5TIT I'm sorry.....knowing full well she has me deep sixed, I just have to comment..... What the heck is SCTV? Is that a TV show? Or maybe she means Slow Scan TV?? SSTV.......Hmmmmm. Then...."APRS if that can be considered digital". Amazing.....and she has a license? Amazing. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
There are other ways to copy CW other than audio. And I am not talking about a computer. Lights are one, vibration is another. Yup, but what a job! I'm not sure of the speeds that people who copy this way can achieve. Others may know a bit more about that. - Mike KB3EIA - "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. YMMV I do not face that choice at all Itried for years to learn Was there a specific problem? I had a lot of trouble with Tinnitus, and getting hung up on one letter, and letting the rest of the message go by ("flying behind the plane") - Mike KB3EIA - As I have mentioned before, my ex had a 70% hearing loss in each ear and tinnitus in both ears. Yet he passed the code. He just cranked the volume up and used headphones. If he can do it, anyone can. I won't deny it can be done - obviously, since my problems are similar. I doubt I'll ever be proficient at Morse though. To get an idea of what it is like for me, imagine concentrating as hard as you can on something. Can I do it? Sure. But not for extended periods. Certainly turning up the headphones helps, but the levels I use are fatiguing, and they sometimes annoy the other ops. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
This dolt is not only anti cw, but he is anti Amateur Radio. Bingo! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Radio Hero" wrote Hans used to walk eight miles to school in bare feet... Actually only about 3/4-mile. Wildwood School, District 28, one room grades 1-8, but rarely kids in every grade, average enrollment about 10 kids. Teacher was Mrs. Isabelle Schneider. At 9th grade you went to "town school" on a yellow bus. During blizzards the bus didn't take you home, so you stayed at your "storm home" --- all the farm kids were assigned one of those. 73, de Hans, K0HB "Storm homes" sounds like a good idea. In our area, they just cancelled the buses and the farmers came into town on their tractors pulling wagons to get the kids home. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Did the farmers display "ARRL Member" stickers on their wagons? |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote and a special place with the Sears catalog. Those shiny pages were hell! Always loved it when mom bought a couple lugs of peaches for canning. Those tissue-like wrappings were a wonder to use. Always thought that in heaven all the outhouses must be equipped with peach wrappers year-round, even when peaches were out of season. (Maybe peaches are always "in season" in heaven?) Winters were the most interesting...with the feather beds and pillows and quilts so thick it would bury my little body so deep I looked like I was part of the bed. My wife is a city girl. After we were married we spent some time (in February) visiting the folks on the farm. First morning it was a wonder to see her hurrying to get dressed before parts were frozen. Then I asked her to toss me my shirt and trousers and I demonstrated how to get fully dressed BEFORE crawling out from under the quilt! 73, de Hans, K0HB QST magazines serve as excellent toilet paper, which is about the best use for anything from the ARRL. |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"ham radio truth" wrote in message groups.com... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - YES to CW or NO to CW makes no difference whatsoever Mike. Not at this stage of the game. Ham radio is a dying hobby, period. The average age of the USA ham operator is a staggering 64 Years. There are FIVE TIMES more hams dying off per month than there are new hams comming into the hobby and license renewals combined. So? we concentrate on the group of folks that have the TIME to do Ham Radio these days. The retired or soon to be retired group. Let the youth text all they want, chase women, find drugs....so what. The idea that Ham radio is dying is pretty weird. I don't see any evidence for it. The closest thing to evidence is that fall-off we are going through right now. And that falloff is due mostly to the "honeydew hams" who got their license so that could tell the hubby or the missus to pick up bread or milk on the way home. Those folks haven't been active in years. And as for the average age of hams? America is aging, aging, aging overall. BFD. Our club has a lot of brand new Hams who are older than me. They are enthusiastic, and having a heck of a good time. I'm glad to have them on board. 80% of young people 2-day have text messaging cellphones. Also there's AOL Instant Messenger or similar Chatroom software plus Apple IPOD Podcasting and similar technology. (just wait till the wireless IPOD hits around October 2005 just in time for xmas!) None of which has a thing to do with Ham Radio. Why are the instant messenger and chatroom stuff touted as some sort of hi-tech alternative to Ham radio. People who think it is just have it WRONG! What young person, apart from the occasional geek, would want to invest time and money in archaic, obsolete, analog technology based ham radio in 2005? Oh yes there will be a few, but for the most part today's young people wouldn't know ham radio from CB and could not care less either. Ham Radio is and always has been a group of radio geeks. I is a geek. Anyone have a problem with that? Only recently has this become a "problem". Some think we need people with street cred. Fresh people. I see no problem with a much smaller, more dedicated group. We don't need 700,000 licensed hams if only a small percentage are actually licensed. As a matter of fact I believe you will find that the membership of the ARRL are the REAL ACTIVE AMATEURS. Not the give a way Tech ticket. These are the folks that wanted a free cell phone. Go for it. Real hams know what this hobby/service is supposed to be. The rest of you are at the bottom of the learning curve. Perhaps if you would pay attention to those that have been there and KNOW what its about....your life would be a bit easier (?). Possibly, but then they would have to find somethin' else to bitch about. Tune across HF any evening and tell me how many young people you hear on SSB. Most of the guys I hear on 75 Meters are long retired and most callsigns I recall from just 10 Years ago are either in the local nursing home or 6 feet under the earth. Which is exactly how 75 has been since the 1950s. Or earlier for all I know. YOUR POINT IS? How about this for a *counterpoint*? During Field day weekend, I heard an obviously very young lady answering my CQ. I was in the middle of a major run at the high power station, and it would have been easier to ignore her. I had to have her repeat the callsign and info several times - I think she was in the missing the front teeth stage. After about a minute we finally got the exchange completed I said "thank you honey", and she said "Thank YOU!". That part came through loud and clear. SO THERE, bitchy negative type hams! Read the handwriting boys. At this rate Ham Radio will be dead by 2030. No it wont. Changed.....but not dead. You of course will be long gone. Good riddance. Snort! - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: on Thurs 30 Jun
2005 17:21 "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message Yeah, "haters" was the wrong choice of word in retrospect. - Mike KB3EIA - No it's not Mike. There are Morse Code haters out there. Lennie the loser is one of the main ones. "Loser?!?" :-) BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! Do you want me to give a precis of what I've WON out of life so far or are you content to vent your enlarged spleen of anger on what you think I wrote before? I can do that but it only arouses more ANGER and assorted assinine abuse from the PCTA crowd here. There is NO "hate" except for all the Coders angry and upset that no-coders don't give the Coders the "respect and honor" the Coders think they deserve. In AMATEURISM, that small segment of the entire radio world. The U.S. amateur radio morse code TEST should go, Dannie. The Coders will go soon enough. The code TEST has outlived its usefulness long ago. The Coslonaut started this thread with a pre-loaded emotional- content-wrapped "question." Coslonaut does that from time to time, desiring to be a Mover and Shaker in this newsgroup. He might mean well (sometimes) but he has bought into the morse myths and bravely trying to become an olde-fahrt hamme. On your other posting - Speaking of AC plugs Lennie the loser....how about doing us all a favor and show your "eeee" competence at a level we all know you are at? Stick your index finger and the little finger into the AC plug and write us a technical report on the results. It's IEEE, not "eeee," Double-Dipped Southern-Fried Dumm**** Dannie. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a professional association. Roughly a quarter million members worldwide. LONG before I joined the IEEE in 1973 I knew better than to "stick fingers into an AC socket." Nominal 115 VAC can be LETHAL, Dannie. Follow the "30-30" rule: Anything above 30 Volts and/or above 30 mA source current can cause heart fibrilation and resulting death...if the conducting path is through the upper chest area. At present I can measure the voltage across an AC outlet. With precision I would use my 4 1/2 digit DVM (made in France), secondly with one of my 3 1/2 digit DVMs (made in China), thirdly with my home-built expanded scale voltmeter that is part of a variable autotransformer controlled 135 W AC source for measuring power supply stability. For just presence or absence of AC voltage, a cute little non-contacting capacitive-sensing light/clicker will do (made in China, bought at Lowes)...or just plugging in a 115 V lamp. No problem. I would have listed my AC chart recorder but I ran out of paper about 9 years ago and haven't had a need to use it since. Got that in a trade for other things even longer ago. It still works fine without chart paper but only for short periods of about 20 minutes using 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Putz. Now now, Dannie. You are UPSET and wanting to FIGHT with someone. Did you lose a fight with that quadruplegic down at VFW hall again? Don't try to "tell" me about radio communications, Dannie, you will only make things worse, annoy me, and waste my time (and everyone else's). You don't have the semantic/literary skills to outclass me. [you never did] The best thing you are able to do in here is to copy the antics of the Tennessee Talibanian and none of that is any sort of "discussion." Tsk, tsk. I had hoped you were better than that, but now you've dashed any optimistic hope with the use of ethnic pejoratives that are not your native language. Go work some DX on HF with CW. It will make you feel better. You aren't even third-rate at computer-modem comms. |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. YMMV I do not face that choice at all Itried for years to learn Was there a specific problem? I had a lot of trouble with Tinnitus, and getting hung up on one letter, and letting the rest of the message go by ("flying behind the plane") - Mike KB3EIA - As I have mentioned before, my ex had a 70% hearing loss in each ear and tinnitus in both ears. Yet he passed the code. He just cranked the volume up and used headphones. If he can do it, anyone can. I won't deny it can be done - obviously, since my problems are similar. I doubt I'll ever be proficient at Morse though. To get an idea of what it is like for me, imagine concentrating as hard as you can on something. Can I do it? Sure. But not for extended periods. Certainly turning up the headphones helps, but the levels I use are fatiguing, and they sometimes annoy the other ops. - Mike KB3EIA - I understand that completely. If my ex was practicing code without the headphones, I had to leave not only the room, but that floor of the house. If he was using headphones, I could hear it more than well enough to copy his practice sessions. The point is that he passed the test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Exactly Dee.....these anti-code dunderheads don't get it. It is mostly a matter of dedication and persistence to learn Morse. They obviously have neither. No it is matter of law, by what power does the FCC have to continue this Morse Code Welfare program. Nothing in the constitution, and nothing anymore in the the treaty. and no one has shown how any provision of the sonstitution allows the FCC to without access to hf based on the skill in the mode. The FCC has ruled in the past that it does not have a case to make. But ultimately one thing many of them do lack is desire, desire to learn Morse is a requirement it is indeed one of the most vital requirement to learn the mode. Why don't they have this desire? I don't know. but maybe you should look to seeling the mode better, if you think it is important Dan/W4NTI If you think the FCC, Riley Hollingsworth, or the ARRL have the best interests of ham radio in mind, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. |
John Smith wrote:
Dan: Now I ask you, "What boob would use SSTV?" Me. A webcam on a computer, compressing and digitizing the video and then converting to an audio signal and finally delivering it to a transceiver, to be picked up and decoded at the other end and fed to a soundcard/computer monitor produces a MUCH clearer sharper and more fps... SSTV is for dinosaurs!!! Sometimes you write unusual things. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "ham radio truth" wrote in message groups.com... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - YES to CW or NO to CW makes no difference whatsoever Mike. Not at this stage of the game. Ham radio is a dying hobby, period. The average age of the USA ham operator is a staggering 64 Years. There are FIVE TIMES more hams dying off per month than there are new hams comming into the hobby and license renewals combined. So? we concentrate on the group of folks that have the TIME to do Ham Radio these days. The retired or soon to be retired group. Let the youth text all they want, chase women, find drugs....so what. The idea that Ham radio is dying is pretty weird. I don't see any evidence for it. The closest thing to evidence is that fall-off we are going through right now. And that falloff is due mostly to the "honeydew hams" who got their license so that could tell the hubby or the missus to pick up bread or milk on the way home. Those folks haven't been active in years. And as for the average age of hams? America is aging, aging, aging overall. BFD. Our club has a lot of brand new Hams who are older than me. They are enthusiastic, and having a heck of a good time. I'm glad to have them on board. 80% of young people 2-day have text messaging cellphones. Also there's AOL Instant Messenger or similar Chatroom software plus Apple IPOD Podcasting and similar technology. (just wait till the wireless IPOD hits around October 2005 just in time for xmas!) None of which has a thing to do with Ham Radio. Why are the instant messenger and chatroom stuff touted as some sort of hi-tech alternative to Ham radio. People who think it is just have it WRONG! What young person, apart from the occasional geek, would want to invest time and money in archaic, obsolete, analog technology based ham radio in 2005? Oh yes there will be a few, but for the most part today's young people wouldn't know ham radio from CB and could not care less either. Ham Radio is and always has been a group of radio geeks. I is a geek. Anyone have a problem with that? Only recently has this become a "problem". Some think we need people with street cred. Fresh people. I see no problem with a much smaller, more dedicated group. We don't need 700,000 licensed hams if only a small percentage are actually licensed. As a matter of fact I believe you will find that the membership of the ARRL are the REAL ACTIVE AMATEURS. Not the give a way Tech ticket. These are the folks that wanted a free cell phone. Go for it. Real hams know what this hobby/service is supposed to be. The rest of you are at the bottom of the learning curve. Perhaps if you would pay attention to those that have been there and KNOW what its about....your life would be a bit easier (?). Possibly, but then they would have to find somethin' else to bitch about. Tune across HF any evening and tell me how many young people you hear on SSB. Most of the guys I hear on 75 Meters are long retired and most callsigns I recall from just 10 Years ago are either in the local nursing home or 6 feet under the earth. Which is exactly how 75 has been since the 1950s. Or earlier for all I know. YOUR POINT IS? How about this for a *counterpoint*? During Field day weekend, I heard an obviously very young lady answering my CQ. I was in the middle of a major run at the high power station, and it would have been easier to ignore her. I had to have her repeat the callsign and info several times - I think she was in the missing the front teeth stage. After about a minute we finally got the exchange completed I said "thank you honey", and she said "Thank YOU!". That part came through loud and clear. SO THERE, bitchy negative type hams! Read the handwriting boys. At this rate Ham Radio will be dead by 2030. No it wont. Changed.....but not dead. You of course will be long gone. Good riddance. Snort! - Mike KB3EIA - Wake up and smell the coffee. Ham radio is and has been for many years, a dead and dying hobby, where today old white men form the core of the hobby. |
From: "K=D8=88B" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 01:47
wrote We got REA in the summer of 1954 when I was 14 years old. Running water= too. (I was 8 or 9 when I learned Morse.) 73, de Hans, K0HB Oh, my, a numbers coincidence. Gee whiz, in late summer of 1954, Army station ADA started moving to its new site NW of Tokyo. At 14 years old I didn't much give a rats ass about the fact that an Army = radio station was moving to a different spot in Japan. (Come think of it, I sti= ll don't give a rats ass.) I was much more excited about getting electric li= ghts in our farm buildings and home. I can understand your "not giving" about others. :-) Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn for young teeners out in the boonies suddenly getting ELECTRICITY in 1954! How about that? 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. Would have lit up your life some... Of course the main room at Kashiwa transmitter building didn't have but about 8 transmitters in 1954, there would be 43 Big Ones in there by 1956 and completion of the move. Not to mention wire antennas all over the airfield, including full rhombics. 1 KW minimum, 40 KW maximum RF outputs. Not a single one of them using on-off keying radiotelegraphy. Sunnuvagun! When one stood at one end and looked down the row to 150 feet or so in the distance and saw nothing but high power HF transmitters side by side on each side, it was bound to have an impression. Then out in the microwave building with four 24-channel microwave radio relay terminals that were the main link with anyone that HAD to be kept ON 24/7. [not to mention the old carrier bays] Perhaps not as much as suddenly getting electricity where one had nothing but wind-charged batteries but then that's us "city boy sissies" I'm sure you'd apply. Life must have been extraordinarily TOUGH way, way out on the farm. You have my sympathies. Nothing else. Just sympathies. :-) dot dot |
Mike:
Wake up, SSTV was big news in the 1960's, it is now 45 years later and they have invented the computer! Any of the web technology of data encryption/compaction/jpeg/mpeg etc can be easily adapted to amateur radio though the sound card (if you have a pci sw receiver card you can do it through other ports and much more efficiently), think about it. Why most amateurs are not experimenting with it only emphasizes their age and inability or unwillingness to stay current with technology. And, the fact that the sharpest technical people are NOT entering amateur radio these days... John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Dan: Now I ask you, "What boob would use SSTV?" Me. A webcam on a computer, compressing and digitizing the video and then converting to an audio signal and finally delivering it to a transceiver, to be picked up and decoded at the other end and fed to a soundcard/computer monitor produces a MUCH clearer sharper and more fps... SSTV is for dinosaurs!!! Sometimes you write unusual things. |
Ginger Raveir wrote: Wake up and smell the coffee. Ham radio is and has been for many years, a dead and dying hobby, where today old white men form the core of the hobby. Old white men also form the core of the U.S. Senate. Ya want the rest of the list? So now what . . . ? .. . . thought so . . w3rv |
"Ginger Raveir" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "ham radio truth" wrote in message groups.com... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - YES to CW or NO to CW makes no difference whatsoever Mike. Not at this stage of the game. Ham radio is a dying hobby, period. The average age of the USA ham operator is a staggering 64 Years. There are FIVE TIMES more hams dying off per month than there are new hams comming into the hobby and license renewals combined. So? we concentrate on the group of folks that have the TIME to do Ham Radio these days. The retired or soon to be retired group. Let the youth text all they want, chase women, find drugs....so what. The idea that Ham radio is dying is pretty weird. I don't see any evidence for it. The closest thing to evidence is that fall-off we are going through right now. And that falloff is due mostly to the "honeydew hams" who got their license so that could tell the hubby or the missus to pick up bread or milk on the way home. Those folks haven't been active in years. And as for the average age of hams? America is aging, aging, aging overall. BFD. Our club has a lot of brand new Hams who are older than me. They are enthusiastic, and having a heck of a good time. I'm glad to have them on board. 80% of young people 2-day have text messaging cellphones. Also there's AOL Instant Messenger or similar Chatroom software plus Apple IPOD Podcasting and similar technology. (just wait till the wireless IPOD hits around October 2005 just in time for xmas!) None of which has a thing to do with Ham Radio. Why are the instant messenger and chatroom stuff touted as some sort of hi-tech alternative to Ham radio. People who think it is just have it WRONG! What young person, apart from the occasional geek, would want to invest time and money in archaic, obsolete, analog technology based ham radio in 2005? Oh yes there will be a few, but for the most part today's young people wouldn't know ham radio from CB and could not care less either. Ham Radio is and always has been a group of radio geeks. I is a geek. Anyone have a problem with that? Only recently has this become a "problem". Some think we need people with street cred. Fresh people. I see no problem with a much smaller, more dedicated group. We don't need 700,000 licensed hams if only a small percentage are actually licensed. As a matter of fact I believe you will find that the membership of the ARRL are the REAL ACTIVE AMATEURS. Not the give a way Tech ticket. These are the folks that wanted a free cell phone. Go for it. Real hams know what this hobby/service is supposed to be. The rest of you are at the bottom of the learning curve. Perhaps if you would pay attention to those that have been there and KNOW what its about....your life would be a bit easier (?). Possibly, but then they would have to find somethin' else to bitch about. Tune across HF any evening and tell me how many young people you hear on SSB. Most of the guys I hear on 75 Meters are long retired and most callsigns I recall from just 10 Years ago are either in the local nursing home or 6 feet under the earth. Which is exactly how 75 has been since the 1950s. Or earlier for all I know. YOUR POINT IS? How about this for a *counterpoint*? During Field day weekend, I heard an obviously very young lady answering my CQ. I was in the middle of a major run at the high power station, and it would have been easier to ignore her. I had to have her repeat the callsign and info several times - I think she was in the missing the front teeth stage. After about a minute we finally got the exchange completed I said "thank you honey", and she said "Thank YOU!". That part came through loud and clear. SO THERE, bitchy negative type hams! Read the handwriting boys. At this rate Ham Radio will be dead by 2030. No it wont. Changed.....but not dead. You of course will be long gone. Good riddance. Snort! - Mike KB3EIA - Wake up and smell the coffee. Ham radio is and has been for many years, a dead and dying hobby, where today old white men form the core of the hobby. I'll be sure to let all the black gentlemen, the women, and the younger people in our club know that. They seem unaware of such a problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim" wrote in message m... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Kim W5TIT I'm sorry.....knowing full well she has me deep sixed, I just have to comment..... What the heck is SCTV? Is that a TV show? Or maybe she means Slow Scan TV?? SSTV.......Hmmmmm. Then...."APRS if that can be considered digital". Amazing.....and she has a license? Amazing. Dan/W4NTI I haven't had you deep-sixed since I began persuing the newsgroup again, Wonder-4-Not-Too-Intelligent. And, as usual, you're still the asshole you have always been. Kim W5TIT |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Yeah, "haters" was the wrong choice of word in retrospect. - Mike KB3EIA - No it's not Mike. There are Morse Code haters out there. Lennie the loser is one of the main ones. Dan/W4NTI You're just this side of the CB mentality. Pppfffffftttttttt Kim W5TIT |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net... Yes she did....then proceeded to show us how ignorant she was/is. Proof positive of the dumbing down of Amateur Radio....IMHO. Dan/W4NTI And, you're proof positive of what alcohol can do to a 1/2 way decent mind. Kim W5TIT |
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. 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. I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with technical savvy. Mr Smith? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
wrote in message ps.com... Ginger Raveir wrote: Wake up and smell the coffee. Ham radio is and has been for many years, a dead and dying hobby, where today old white men form the core of the hobby. Old white men also form the core of the U.S. Senate. Ya want the rest of the list? So now what . . . ? . . . thought so . . w3rv Po wittle W3RV. You do upset so easily. BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Ginger Raveir" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "ham radio truth" wrote in message groups.com... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - YES to CW or NO to CW makes no difference whatsoever Mike. Not at this stage of the game. Ham radio is a dying hobby, period. The average age of the USA ham operator is a staggering 64 Years. There are FIVE TIMES more hams dying off per month than there are new hams comming into the hobby and license renewals combined. So? we concentrate on the group of folks that have the TIME to do Ham Radio these days. The retired or soon to be retired group. Let the youth text all they want, chase women, find drugs....so what. The idea that Ham radio is dying is pretty weird. I don't see any evidence for it. The closest thing to evidence is that fall-off we are going through right now. And that falloff is due mostly to the "honeydew hams" who got their license so that could tell the hubby or the missus to pick up bread or milk on the way home. Those folks haven't been active in years. And as for the average age of hams? America is aging, aging, aging overall. BFD. Our club has a lot of brand new Hams who are older than me. They are enthusiastic, and having a heck of a good time. I'm glad to have them on board. 80% of young people 2-day have text messaging cellphones. Also there's AOL Instant Messenger or similar Chatroom software plus Apple IPOD Podcasting and similar technology. (just wait till the wireless IPOD hits around October 2005 just in time for xmas!) None of which has a thing to do with Ham Radio. Why are the instant messenger and chatroom stuff touted as some sort of hi-tech alternative to Ham radio. People who think it is just have it WRONG! What young person, apart from the occasional geek, would want to invest time and money in archaic, obsolete, analog technology based ham radio in 2005? Oh yes there will be a few, but for the most part today's young people wouldn't know ham radio from CB and could not care less either. Ham Radio is and always has been a group of radio geeks. I is a geek. Anyone have a problem with that? Only recently has this become a "problem". Some think we need people with street cred. Fresh people. I see no problem with a much smaller, more dedicated group. We don't need 700,000 licensed hams if only a small percentage are actually licensed. As a matter of fact I believe you will find that the membership of the ARRL are the REAL ACTIVE AMATEURS. Not the give a way Tech ticket. These are the folks that wanted a free cell phone. Go for it. Real hams know what this hobby/service is supposed to be. The rest of you are at the bottom of the learning curve. Perhaps if you would pay attention to those that have been there and KNOW what its about....your life would be a bit easier (?). Possibly, but then they would have to find somethin' else to bitch about. Tune across HF any evening and tell me how many young people you hear on SSB. Most of the guys I hear on 75 Meters are long retired and most callsigns I recall from just 10 Years ago are either in the local nursing home or 6 feet under the earth. Which is exactly how 75 has been since the 1950s. Or earlier for all I know. YOUR POINT IS? How about this for a *counterpoint*? During Field day weekend, I heard an obviously very young lady answering my CQ. I was in the middle of a major run at the high power station, and it would have been easier to ignore her. I had to have her repeat the callsign and info several times - I think she was in the missing the front teeth stage. After about a minute we finally got the exchange completed I said "thank you honey", and she said "Thank YOU!". That part came through loud and clear. SO THERE, bitchy negative type hams! Read the handwriting boys. At this rate Ham Radio will be dead by 2030. No it wont. Changed.....but not dead. You of course will be long gone. Good riddance. Snort! - Mike KB3EIA - Wake up and smell the coffee. Ham radio is and has been for many years, a dead and dying hobby, where today old white men form the core of the hobby. I'll be sure to let all the black gentlemen, the women, and the younger people in our club know that. They seem unaware of such a problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE True, in fact, I have helped a couple of black Americans get their ham licenses. However, nationwide, looking at the whole big picture, ham radio is a hobby comprised of old white men. |
"Kim" wrote in message m... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... Yes she did....then proceeded to show us how ignorant she was/is. Proof positive of the dumbing down of Amateur Radio....IMHO. Dan/W4NTI And, you're proof positive of what alcohol can do to a 1/2 way decent mind. Kim W5TIT I think you ****ed her off Dan. |
"Kim" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Yeah, "haters" was the wrong choice of word in retrospect. - Mike KB3EIA - No it's not Mike. There are Morse Code haters out there. Lennie the loser is one of the main ones. Dan/W4NTI You're just this side of the CB mentality. Pppfffffftttttttt Kim W5TIT Hey Dan, when did you start operating CB? LOL |
"Kim" wrote in message m... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... "Kim" wrote in message m... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... What is more important: 1. Having a license that allows HF access. 2. Not having to learn Morse code. IOW, is standing on principle, and refusing to learn Morse code a better thing than learning it to get the priveliges? - Mike KB3EIA - Hi Mike: I think you know I don't "hate" Morse Code. I, personally, never really wished to try it out; just like I have never really tried SCTV, anything digital (except for APRS--if that can be considered digital), ATV, etc. I think you get my point. Since I have ever first perused this newsgroup, except for a few real jerks, I'd believe that most of "us" who just don't wander into other means of communication--including Morse Code--are pretty much the same as I am. I absolutely support those who use the mode (as I do anyone who uses and/or invents any other modes), am willing to honor the tradition of Morse Code (as I honor the tradition of other steadfast things in amateur radio), and hold no animosity for anyone--OTHER than the "idiots" on both sides of the floor (as it would be stated in political terms :o). For me, it was never a matter of wanting HF privileges that much, and I learned the 5wpm needed to get the privileges I was happy with. So, could you do me a favor? Please rethink your phrase "Morse Code Haters." I don't think most of us feel that strongly about it. Kim W5TIT I'm sorry.....knowing full well she has me deep sixed, I just have to comment..... What the heck is SCTV? Is that a TV show? Or maybe she means Slow Scan TV?? SSTV.......Hmmmmm. Then...."APRS if that can be considered digital". Amazing.....and she has a license? Amazing. Dan/W4NTI I haven't had you deep-sixed since I began persuing the newsgroup again, Wonder-4-Not-Too-Intelligent. And, as usual, you're still the asshole you have always been. Kim W5TIT Now she's really ****ed Dan. You old meanie. |
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 - |
|
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com