|
John Smith wrote:
Dee: The only person talking 300 baud is you, No. The FCC says so too. I told you to throw away that 300 baud modem and get a decent one (or revamp an old phone modem to your needs.) On most of the HF/MF amateur bands, amateurs in the USA are limited to 300 baud for the transmission of "data". Now it might be argued that sending .jpgs is an "image" mode, and is only allowed in the 'phone subbands, with correspondingly wider bandwidths. But there's more to it than just hooking a typical computer modem to an SSB rig. Let's say some hams find a way to fit, say, 14 kbaud into an SSB bandwidth with characteristics that will work on the HF ham bands. And suppose they get FCC to say it's OK and all that. The transmission of a 1 meg .jpg will still take more than a minute with no errorchecking. Since you didn't even understand that, you certainly won't grasp the rest... Try grasping the current regulations, John.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: "John Smith" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 12:25
Dee: My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot tell the difference. Dee is smart. But, her emotional LOVE of "CW" over-rides her reasoning ability. 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!!!" Actually, FOUR decades. The Bell Systems' video telephone. There's a lot of its history on the Internet. I can dig up the URL from an archive CD which has digitization of Bell Labs documents in it...but, it's no use taking the trouble because the "CW" LOVERS in here won't have any of it. This dial-up modem I and hundreds of thousands of others are using sends/receives (full duplex) 56K rates in a 3 KHz BW. To follow the "simple arithmetic rules" (from Carson's series equations), the telephone bandwidth "should be" about 100 KHz! Obviously it isn't. 100 KHz BW down to fit in a 3 KHz BW! :-) MPEG4 compression-expansion for real-time video is quite alive and well on our Comcast cable digital feed. About 230 TV channels in the bandwidth (digitally encoded) where we had only about 60+ in analog form. BTW, that includes the DTV already broadcast which is also on the same digital cable feed...and DTV already has over 3:1 compression to fit inside an alloted 6 MHz BW. [more pixels than analog equivalent but an exact number will bring out those nasty nit-pickers who will midsdirect the thread into some "never ending story" about compression] Military small-unit field radios have, for two decades, used digitized VOICE that fits inside a 3 KHz BW, with or without encryption. Standard COMSEC, either internal (built-in) or external as a peripheral unit. There's lots more examples of digitization and compression, from license-free FRS toy walkie-talkies to the 2.4 GHz cordless phones to tens, no hundreds of thousands of WLANs at work and at home, all cramming lots of data into less bandwidth than thought possible...carrying with it real-time video from closed circuit TV cameras and (analog) wide-band music. Hundreds of texts available at Amazon on the subject. "CW" LOVERS will have NONE of that. Their snarly tones are like the old Spark signals...growly and taking up bandwidth equal to all of 75 meters. Standing there looking stupid is no way to go through life girl! There's no accounting for taste when emotionalism over the narrowbanded amateur "CW" LOVE pushes aside logical reasoning. None of the "CW" LOVERS in here will have any of it until the ARRL anoints the subject with a papal Sumner blessing. Amen. |
|
All that wire on the airfield.....must have been ruff landing those
bi-planes. Dan/W4NTI wrote in message oups.com... From: "K?B" 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 still don't give a rats ass.) I was much more excited about getting electric lights 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 |
wrote in message ups.com... 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? Poor Lennie the loser is a real trip. Military comms and CB radio. Then compares it to ham radio. Bottom line, the only thing they have in common is the fact they operate on HF radio....period. Bottom line is he couldn't pass the CW test, and gave up. Now we get to listen to him brag about shoving a broom around a transmitter site while a lower ranked enlisted man. BIG DEAL. Dan/W4NTI |
John Smith wrote:
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! Elucidate! I wait. - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote:
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... Elucidate! Tell us the manner in which we can do it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Ginger Raveir" wrote in message ... 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. Thats it....bring in the "Ham Radio is a racist organization". It isn't our fault more folks other than "white" dont join up. I have seen no obstructions put up to keep them out. So who is at fault here? Right. Dan/W4NTI |
"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 Thats funny Kim.......experience perhaps? Dan/W4NTI |
"Chesty Puller" wrote in message ... "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. I hope so. Dan/W4NTI |
|
|
|
My neighbor just got a 7500 NAL to pay. He lives in a falling down trailor
and his wife works to support him. Oh...he is a Freebander, or should I say...he was a Freebander. And you call hams stupid? Dan/W4NTI "Freebander" wrote in message news:iog26rbfbpcu5du.010720051029@kirk... is it possible for a bunch of ancient/decrepit old men to get more anemic, senile, ridiculous, loathsome or "dumbed down?" amateurs take all the prizes when it come to stupidity "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 |
Dee:
I don't know about how the laws cover physics in your neck of the woods, but here it goes like this: The "bandwidth" of my phoneline just happens to be about 300 hz to 5000 hz (this can vary widely with equip--but the phone company pretty well guarantees this minimum) and, my computer modem uses this "audio bandwidth" to send/recv data at speeds up to 5.7K bytes per second. Now, I just happen to know a guy with a transceiver which he put mic level jacks on to interface with a transceiver and a USRobotics external 57K modem and set to software flow control and ignore the fact there is NO DC carrier voltage on the line. Since the transceiver he hooked the modem to has a modified audio recv/xmit bandwidth of approx ~100 Hz to ~8K he has PLENTY OF BANDWIDTH. .... now really, a high school student should be able to manage this--indeed, the one I seen did... the USR modem takes care of data compaction and error control--pretty straight forward really... I expect the other hams will "discover" and present this "revolutionary" idea within the next decade. grin .... from there it was a simple matter to take/input the audio from/to the transceiver from the computer sound card and do enhanced encryption/compaction by means of software on the digital signals--basically you find very similar in cutting edge technologies--and while I am not 100% certain--I would almost bet it is done nearly 100% in a similar fashion... being a software engineer, I can almost guarantee that part--I am a little less sure about how they implement the hardware and I rather doubt it is an ancient 56K phone modem ROFLOL!!! Works equally well for data/voice/video. That is all taken care of in software, you simply need to know what type of data you are getting, if you try to interpret voice as text or the opposite--I am sure you can see there would be a problem... I might add, the first time I seen this done was over five years ago... so really, the hams may have it as quickly as another five years! innocent look John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "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 |
Gawd Lennie the loser is so easy. Its like kicking a dog till he yelps.
Dan/W4NTI wrote in message oups.com... 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. |
"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 I wouldn't know Twit. But I guarantee you do. Dan/W4NTI |
"Chesty Puller" wrote in message ... "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 I used to fix them. Charged a few bux, met some good people, and some pure idiots. Talked a bunch of em into getting a ham ticket. Now I talk to the ex CBers on 2m and HF. Does that count? Dan/W4NTI |
|
Len:
I really don't mind dee, and I give her the benefit of the doubt--she most likely is intelligent--I refuse judgment this early in the game. My sharp words are just meant to "spice up" the conversation a bit... grin John wrote in message oups.com... From: "John Smith" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 12:25 Dee: My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot tell the difference. Dee is smart. But, her emotional LOVE of "CW" over-rides her reasoning ability. 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!!!" Actually, FOUR decades. The Bell Systems' video telephone. There's a lot of its history on the Internet. I can dig up the URL from an archive CD which has digitization of Bell Labs documents in it...but, it's no use taking the trouble because the "CW" LOVERS in here won't have any of it. This dial-up modem I and hundreds of thousands of others are using sends/receives (full duplex) 56K rates in a 3 KHz BW. To follow the "simple arithmetic rules" (from Carson's series equations), the telephone bandwidth "should be" about 100 KHz! Obviously it isn't. 100 KHz BW down to fit in a 3 KHz BW! :-) MPEG4 compression-expansion for real-time video is quite alive and well on our Comcast cable digital feed. About 230 TV channels in the bandwidth (digitally encoded) where we had only about 60+ in analog form. BTW, that includes the DTV already broadcast which is also on the same digital cable feed...and DTV already has over 3:1 compression to fit inside an alloted 6 MHz BW. [more pixels than analog equivalent but an exact number will bring out those nasty nit-pickers who will midsdirect the thread into some "never ending story" about compression] Military small-unit field radios have, for two decades, used digitized VOICE that fits inside a 3 KHz BW, with or without encryption. Standard COMSEC, either internal (built-in) or external as a peripheral unit. There's lots more examples of digitization and compression, from license-free FRS toy walkie-talkies to the 2.4 GHz cordless phones to tens, no hundreds of thousands of WLANs at work and at home, all cramming lots of data into less bandwidth than thought possible...carrying with it real-time video from closed circuit TV cameras and (analog) wide-band music. Hundreds of texts available at Amazon on the subject. "CW" LOVERS will have NONE of that. Their snarly tones are like the old Spark signals...growly and taking up bandwidth equal to all of 75 meters. Standing there looking stupid is no way to go through life girl! There's no accounting for taste when emotionalism over the narrowbanded amateur "CW" LOVE pushes aside logical reasoning. None of the "CW" LOVERS in here will have any of it until the ARRL anoints the subject with a papal Sumner blessing. Amen. |
N2EY:
I think all my college professors were in agreement on one point--YOU MUST FIRST LEARN THE RULES!!! But, only so you can effectively break them later--if they were not in agreement with this second part, at least, I find those who are in "the real world." However, that is NOT to suggest hams live in the real world... grin John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Dee: The only person talking 300 baud is you, No. The FCC says so too. I told you to throw away that 300 baud modem and get a decent one (or revamp an old phone modem to your needs.) On most of the HF/MF amateur bands, amateurs in the USA are limited to 300 baud for the transmission of "data". Now it might be argued that sending .jpgs is an "image" mode, and is only allowed in the 'phone subbands, with correspondingly wider bandwidths. But there's more to it than just hooking a typical computer modem to an SSB rig. Let's say some hams find a way to fit, say, 14 kbaud into an SSB bandwidth with characteristics that will work on the HF ham bands. And suppose they get FCC to say it's OK and all that. The transmission of a 1 meg .jpg will still take more than a minute with no errorchecking. Since you didn't even understand that, you certainly won't grasp the rest... Try grasping the current regulations, John.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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 Thank you for the compliment W5TWIT. Dan/W4NTI |
I also might add that with "DVD Decryptor" and "AutoGK" you can
compact a full 2+ hour DVD to a regular 650 meg cdrom which is playable via windows media player on virtually ANY windows computer having minimal specifications. Indeed, it may help some to play with this as it really gives one a picture into the power of the medium which is being missed by hams... as they stoke their vibroflex's... .... the terms "DVD Decryptor", AutoGk, Divx and avi will provide much enlightenment... John "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I don't know about how the laws cover physics in your neck of the woods, but here it goes like this: The "bandwidth" of my phoneline just happens to be about 300 hz to 5000 hz (this can vary widely with equip--but the phone company pretty well guarantees this minimum) and, my computer modem uses this "audio bandwidth" to send/recv data at speeds up to 5.7K bytes per second. Now, I just happen to know a guy with a transceiver which he put mic level jacks on to interface with a transceiver and a USRobotics external 57K modem and set to software flow control and ignore the fact there is NO DC carrier voltage on the line. Since the transceiver he hooked the modem to has a modified audio recv/xmit bandwidth of approx ~100 Hz to ~8K he has PLENTY OF BANDWIDTH. ... now really, a high school student should be able to manage this--indeed, the one I seen did... the USR modem takes care of data compaction and error control--pretty straight forward really... I expect the other hams will "discover" and present this "revolutionary" idea within the next decade. grin ... from there it was a simple matter to take/input the audio from/to the transceiver from the computer sound card and do enhanced encryption/compaction by means of software on the digital signals--basically you find very similar in cutting edge technologies--and while I am not 100% certain--I would almost bet it is done nearly 100% in a similar fashion... being a software engineer, I can almost guarantee that part--I am a little less sure about how they implement the hardware and I rather doubt it is an ancient 56K phone modem ROFLOL!!! Works equally well for data/voice/video. That is all taken care of in software, you simply need to know what type of data you are getting, if you try to interpret voice as text or the opposite--I am sure you can see there would be a problem... I might add, the first time I seen this done was over five years ago... so really, the hams may have it as quickly as another five years! innocent look John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "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 |
Dee:
I should point out, with divx/avi compression a 3 minute color video of relatively good quality is easily obtained in 1 mb or less... a BW is much, much smaller John "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 "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 ... I also might add that with "DVD Decryptor" and "AutoGK" you can compact a full 2+ hour DVD to a regular 650 meg cdrom which is playable via windows media player on virtually ANY windows computer having minimal specifications. And how does that allow it to be transmitted over the amateur bands in a useful time period??? 650 meg is still far more than can be sent over the HF bands in any practical amount of time. Indeed, it may help some to play with this as it really gives one a picture into the power of the medium which is being missed by hams... as they stoke their vibroflex's... It may help you to calculate the transmission time of 650 meg at only 300 baud. And don't tell me the rules can be changed. As I said before, that's not practical as the speed that would be required to do the type of transfer that you want at any bearable speed would wipe out an entire band or more. So tell us the magic encryption scheme that lets you transfer that data in a matter of minutes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Are you arguing: 1) That people should not do this? -or- 2)It is impossible? It started out that it was impossible--of course that is ridiculous and only old hams would think it was, the technology has existed and been in use for at least a decade (and is a prime example of why the tech savvy young crowd make faces at amateur radio.) Now you want to start arguing rules--I decline--I have NO TIME for that... take rules up with the lawyers here, none of that interests me... I will police myself or suffer the consequences, others only need worry about themselves... .... why anyone would think 56k is "dangerous" on HF should have their heads examined... it is the audio bandwidth that is of consequence here, not rf bandwidth! (with the exception of FM which it can be used on with even greater speed and success!) Spread Spectrum would be much faster, 1-100 mb per sec should be no problem and virtually impossible to detect, if done over a wide enough spectrum... As far as the hardware, enough information has been given in a previous post of mine for a computer/radio savvy tech to stick one of these puppies together on a weekend, any second year college student in CS/EE should be able to handle the software, this is assuming an ibm/clone/work-a-like, I have never seen it done on a mac or mainframe, but possible I am sure... Now you are just standing there looking silly... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... I also might add that with "DVD Decryptor" and "AutoGK" you can compact a full 2+ hour DVD to a regular 650 meg cdrom which is playable via windows media player on virtually ANY windows computer having minimal specifications. And how does that allow it to be transmitted over the amateur bands in a useful time period??? 650 meg is still far more than can be sent over the HF bands in any practical amount of time. Indeed, it may help some to play with this as it really gives one a picture into the power of the medium which is being missed by hams... as they stoke their vibroflex's... It may help you to calculate the transmission time of 650 meg at only 300 baud. And don't tell me the rules can be changed. As I said before, that's not practical as the speed that would be required to do the type of transfer that you want at any bearable speed would wipe out an entire band or more. So tell us the magic encryption scheme that lets you transfer that data in a matter of minutes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: 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 I'm white and I'm a man. I'm hoping to be old some day. I'll send you an application for admission to the Core as soon as you qualify. Dave K8MN w3rv |
kelly:
To tell you the truth, I never planned on getting this old--it just happened! grin John wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: 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 I'm white and I'm a man. I'm hoping to be old some day. I'll send you an application for admission to the Core as soon as you qualify. Dave K8MN w3rv |
wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: 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 I'm white and I'm a man. I'm hoping to be old some day. I'll send you an application for admission to the Core as soon as you qualify. Dave K8MN w3rv You have just removed all doubt as to your idiocy. Go back to whining and ****ing about K1MAN |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message link.net... My neighbor just got a 7500 NAL to pay. He lives in a falling down trailor and his wife works to support him. Oh...he is a Freebander, or should I say...he was a Freebander. And you call hams stupid? Dan/W4NTI "Freebander" wrote in message news:iog26rbfbpcu5du.010720051029@kirk... is it possible for a bunch of ancient/decrepit old men to get more anemic, senile, ridiculous, loathsome or "dumbed down?" amateurs take all the prizes when it come to stupidity "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 A NAL from the FCC is not worth the paper it is printed on. The FCC has no authority to collect. |
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 1 Jul 2005 18:56
wrote: From: "John Smith" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 12:25 Dee: My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot tell the difference. Dee is smart. But, her emotional LOVE of "CW" over-rides her reasoning ability. Not talking about CW. peace out Peace on you too, sweetums. I was posting to John Smith...and I AM talking about "CW." Deal with it. Now be a good little PCTA extra and go sulk in the corner... |
From: "Dan/W4NTI"Dum****Dan_southern-fried_dip****@KKK_R_US on Fri 1
Jul 2005 22:35 There it is folks, a disgruntled CBer that couldn't learn the code and failed his ham test. So much for Lennie the loser. (of course now he will deny he actually tried to take the test.....well at least that is how he remembers it). Tsk, tsk, tsk, Dannie thinks he is kicking stray dogs again... I DID take THE test...with the FCC...in Chicago...at the beginning of March, 1956. For a First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Operator license. Passed. One sitting, interrupted only by a fire drill in the Federal building that day. NEVER took a ham test with the FCC, VEC, or FDA. Took a couple of practice written tests on the Internet...passed them, too. No problem. Rather low-level knowledge of radio, mostly memorization of existing regulations. Has Dannie ever taken any COLLEGE LEVEL ENGINEERING COURSES? And the TESTS that go with those? I have. Passed them, too. Actually, I've "passed" the most stringent TEST of all...using and applying gained knowledge to insure a paycheck arrived regularly from my employer (as an electronics design engineer... and income derived for my partner-ship (which involved a base and mobile radio requiring that FCC Radiotelephone license). Passed those, too. Just what DID Dannie Dip**** "pass" besides gas and a morse code test? "Out" maybe? Have a nice evening down at the VFW hall tonight. Try to avoid that quadruplegic lest you get beat up again. Temper fry. |
From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 22:42
wrote in message Oh, my, Dannie boy finished a whole six-pack of Billy Beer and now is feeling very "brave." Time for him to garbage-mouth some veterans... Poor Lennie the loser is a real trip. Military comms and CB radio. And military VLF as a civilian...and military and civilian radio as a civilian...and civilian maritime radio as a civilian...and civilian mobile radio NOT CB as a civilian...plus lots of microwave radio things for the government and civil life as a civilian...leaving out civilian broadcasting as a civilian. Then compares it to ham radio. Couldn't possibly do the mighty, noble, top-of-the-line, cutting- edge manual morse that the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society does, no sir! Bottom line, the only thing they have in common is the fact they operate on HF radio....period. WRONGO, Mongo. VLF, LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, microwaves (assorted bands) on up to 25 GHz. Bottom line is he couldn't pass the CW test, and gave up. You betcha, sweatbreath. WASTE OF TIME forty-six years ago. Still a waste of time for me. Still a waste of time for anyone who wants to enter the hobby of amateur radio through FCC-regulated testing. Now we get to listen to him brag about shoving a broom around a transmitter site while a lower ranked enlisted man. BIG DEAL. Poor Dannie boy, drunk as a skunk and stinkier. Dannie boy, you must stop ranking people according to YOUR accomplishments. "Lower ranked?" As an E-5, three up and one down, I was in the lowest category of NCOs, true. Supervisor, not a broom pusher. Speaking honestly, sweatbreath, I wouldn't put YOU in any QSY or maintenance task back then in the early 1950s. The gear was just too complex for someone who thinks the top-of-the-line in radio is doing manual morse. Tsk. Nobody did manual morse at ADA/RUAP back in the 1950s, Dannie. TTY and RTTY. One had to read in order to put the right tapes on the right machines. Reading would have been too difficult for you. Tsk, tsk. Let us know when you sober up... |
From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 15:51
"Ginger Raveir" wrote in message ... 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. Thats it....bring in the "Ham Radio is a racist organization". It isn't our fault more folks other than "white" dont join up. I have seen no obstructions put up to keep them out. So who is at fault here? You might look down at the big white sheet you are wearing. You know the one I mean, the uniform of the Kode Klucks Klan. Right. OK, you understand. Now what are you going to DO about it? At least get it washed first. THIS year. Yech. |
Dee:
If one ever gets serious about using HF for video, and HS data transmission, this: http://www.thiecom.de/english/g313i/ is an excellent investment. The digital signal can be pulled directly off the PCI bus in the computer and fed to software. This company supplies the software framework for just about anything you can imagine, if you know how to code or know someone who does--the sky is the limit... 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 |
|
|
From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am
Dee: If one ever gets serious about using HF for video, and HS data transmission, this: http://www.thiecom.de/english/?g313i/ is an excellent investment. The digital signal can be pulled directly off the PCI bus in the computer and fed to software. This company supplies the software framework for just about anything you can imagine, if you know how to code or know someone who does--the sky is the limit... John, lots of us know of data compression and maybe a few radio amateurs will acknowledge the elegant work of Claude Elwood Shannon back in 1947. But, that is really NOT the issue in here. Status quondam is the issue. Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2 times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times. The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code" is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have no Variety] Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as- when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch. Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test. A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" That was during the successful testing phase of DRM. The same group also decried GMDSS as "unworkable!" even though the maritime community had already researched and tested it and approved it worldwide. Morse code on 500 KHz MUST continue they said, ignoring what the SOLAS folks had already determined. The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Effects of selective fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put many signals on a given band without any mutual interference. The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that. They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band audio. The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand "already- done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to "demonstrate" that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the sandbox. Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group. Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for "radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing). Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something different. Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks. Big Brother in the NE will protect them. Offshore designers and makers will provide they radio toys, all their bells and whistles. :-( "Shannon's Law?" Ain't in Part 97. Fergit it... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com