|
Len:
You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. The only part which amazes me is that they fail to see or feel the flood waters which have already risen above their heads. This is all going on and no law, person or group even slows it a bit. Progress has a life of it owns, it waits for no man, no group, no law... Funny thing is, amateur radio was implemented with the idea these "experimenters" would give back to the community in advances in the field--somewhere this got totally reversed and now they cry for more laws and regulations to halt progress--now I have never seen a better display of insanity! But, somehow they think they can argue this as a "service" to their fellow citizens. Krist, the egyptian high priests who held their whole nation hostage were more progressive! At least they made good durable mummies... John wrote in message oups.com... 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... |
Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling?
Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. |
RST Engineering wrote: Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? No scatalogical implication, no reference as to where in the dyke. I hope it is just a mispelling Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. |
wrote in message ups.com... 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. I didn't know you were so familiar with the rights of the KKK. Please give us more information. I am sure the FBI would be interested.....go head dork. Dan/W4NTI |
"Hey Boy Riley" wrote in message ... "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. They don't have to collect it. They just pass it down the line to the next agency of the Federal Government that does. FCC did it job just fine. Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message oups.com... 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. Very impresive indeed Lennie. Got any proof? Your the one that demand proof all the time....put it up right here. You have a scanner, right? I never had a need for the 1st or 2nd commercial. Most to all of my electronics technicial work was done with military contractors, or companies that had a 1st ph there already. Of course you do realize that all the first pnones and seconds were just dropped away. So they really didn't amount to much anyway. Sorta like the ham tests of today. And hey good deal on passing the on-line tests of today. Pre teen age children do the same with ease. What does that tell you Lennie? I don't belong to the VFW Lennie. They didn't want any Vietnam Vets to join a few years ago (course they want us now), so I gave them their wish. I am a lifetime member of the DAV however. Oh you know them don't ya Lennie? Only way to get in is to be disabled while in military service and have a service connected rating. We don't have a local branch I'm sorry to say. I may join with the Vietnam Veterans of America, ain't decided just yet. See ya. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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. break I didn't know you were so familiar with the rights of the KKK. Please give us more information. I am sure the FBI would be interested.....go head dork. The KKK, as well as, the Nazi's, the commies all have the same rights as the rest of us. There are those at the FBI that would like to change that but thier it is as to the uniforms of KKK's that info is in the public domain Dan/W4NTI |
"A dyke (or dike) is a stone or earthen wall constructed as a defense
or as a boundary. The best known form of dyke is a construction built along the edge of a body of water to prevent it from flooding onto an adjacent lowland. However dykes have also been built as field boundaries and as military defenses. More on this type of dyke can be found in the article on dry-stone dykes." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_(construction) I fail to really see your point, however, I did not miss the fact you point to your lack of education, I wonder if that was really your intent? John "RST Engineering" wrote in message ... Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. |
From: "John Smith" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 13:24
Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. Tsk, clever wordplay in this heavily-homophobic group of PCTA extras isn't going to be noticed much...:-) The only part which amazes me is that they fail to see or feel the flood waters which have already risen above their heads. This is all going on and no law, person or group even slows it a bit. Progress has a life of it owns, it waits for no man, no group, no law... Well, my take on THIS group of worshippers at the Church of St. Hiram is that they are (unconsciously) try to hold back the time. They seem to long for an earlier time when they got started in ham radio, at least three decades past. By holding onto those "early days" they feel they can stave off encroaching age. Three decades and more ago were a "simpler time" in radio. Most radios were analog. Only a few high-end models had things like digital readout of frequency, for example. DSP was a thing for the future. These old timers could barely understand basic analog circuits in "radio." Give them a digital thing and they were lost. ["whuzzat? a lil bug? we don' need no stinkin' digital! give us "radio!"] Claude Shannon gave the entire communications world his laws in 1947. Trouble is, Claude's landmark paper used a Teletype as an example. Olde-fahrt morsemen didn't pay attention, thought it didn't apply to their beloved "code." It did, and the ARRL Handbook early on had the (unreferenced) statement of noise versus bandwidth (of filters) and never went much farther. Few hams had teleprinters in 1948. They had beloved MORSE CODE! Supposedly morse code information "does not apply" to Shannon's Laws...and has been argued as such in here in the past (mainly by a now-SK Missourian). Sheesh. (to be polite) As Yogi Berra said, "The future ain't what it usta' be..." Funny thing is, amateur radio was implemented with the idea these "experimenters" would give back to the community in advances in the field--somewhere this got totally reversed and now they cry for more laws and regulations to halt progress--now I have never seen a better display of insanity! It's the antithesis of experimentation. A "fill in the blanks" kind of rote work that pleases those who just want to play in a sandbox and pretend to be "pioneers advancing the state of the (merchandising) art." They know NOT of what is behind their front panels but they take emotional sustenance in feeling the nice knobs and admiring the glowing digital displays. They READ of experimentation once in a while in QST, learn the buzz- words (from the ads therein) and pretend to know state-of-the- art. Shrug. But, somehow they think they can argue this as a "service" to their fellow citizens. Krist, the egyptian high priests who held their whole nation hostage were more progressive! At least they made good durable mummies... Tut, Tut! :-) |
From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 14:27
Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. "Scatalogic" no. Somewhat "erotic," perhaps. Clever word play, most definitely! :-) This group is NOT fully fired up on all bands, Jim. Few have the reading perception to see any sort of humorous word play. A few of them lean towards the "humerus" side, wanting to break a bone of anyone talking against them. :-) Ever fire up that LCie4 package I sent you? |
Len:
The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this thread is rather drab and boring... .... doesn't the chanting from the ARRL/FCC monks and worshipers ever annoy you? It drives me nuts! grin John wrote in message ups.com... From: "John Smith" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 13:24 Len: You are right, they do look like a little like a dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke. Tsk, clever wordplay in this heavily-homophobic group of PCTA extras isn't going to be noticed much...:-) The only part which amazes me is that they fail to see or feel the flood waters which have already risen above their heads. This is all going on and no law, person or group even slows it a bit. Progress has a life of it owns, it waits for no man, no group, no law... Well, my take on THIS group of worshippers at the Church of St. Hiram is that they are (unconsciously) try to hold back the time. They seem to long for an earlier time when they got started in ham radio, at least three decades past. By holding onto those "early days" they feel they can stave off encroaching age. Three decades and more ago were a "simpler time" in radio. Most radios were analog. Only a few high-end models had things like digital readout of frequency, for example. DSP was a thing for the future. These old timers could barely understand basic analog circuits in "radio." Give them a digital thing and they were lost. ["whuzzat? a lil bug? we don' need no stinkin' digital! give us "radio!"] Claude Shannon gave the entire communications world his laws in 1947. Trouble is, Claude's landmark paper used a Teletype as an example. Olde-fahrt morsemen didn't pay attention, thought it didn't apply to their beloved "code." It did, and the ARRL Handbook early on had the (unreferenced) statement of noise versus bandwidth (of filters) and never went much farther. Few hams had teleprinters in 1948. They had beloved MORSE CODE! Supposedly morse code information "does not apply" to Shannon's Laws...and has been argued as such in here in the past (mainly by a now-SK Missourian). Sheesh. (to be polite) As Yogi Berra said, "The future ain't what it usta' be..." Funny thing is, amateur radio was implemented with the idea these "experimenters" would give back to the community in advances in the field--somewhere this got totally reversed and now they cry for more laws and regulations to halt progress--now I have never seen a better display of insanity! It's the antithesis of experimentation. A "fill in the blanks" kind of rote work that pleases those who just want to play in a sandbox and pretend to be "pioneers advancing the state of the (merchandising) art." They know NOT of what is behind their front panels but they take emotional sustenance in feeling the nice knobs and admiring the glowing digital displays. They READ of experimentation once in a while in QST, learn the buzz- words (from the ads therein) and pretend to know state-of-the- art. Shrug. But, somehow they think they can argue this as a "service" to their fellow citizens. Krist, the egyptian high priests who held their whole nation hostage were more progressive! At least they made good durable mummies... Tut, Tut! :-) |
Most of us prefer to use Webster as opposed to that monument of ignorance
called Wikopedia. In the United States version of English, a dike is used to hold back water. A dyke is a slang term for lesbian. Sorry, sir, your lack of both education and street smarts shows. Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... "A dyke (or dike) is a stone or earthen wall constructed as a defense or as a boundary. I fail to really see your point, however, I did not miss the fact you point to your lack of education, I wonder if that was really your intent? |
|
Webster is wrong.
Dyke is a word with roots coming from holland and surrounding areas (and not coincidently, they also have a lot of dykes holding back water--probably the name is indicative of the first man building one--example, Van Dyke.) Dike (a greek goddess of justice) is a reference to an ancient goddess, and its' reference to lesbians sprang from there. Because american dictionaries got it wrong is a surprise, however you will find correct references in any decent european/english dictionary--or a google search. John "RST Engineering" wrote in message ... Most of us prefer to use Webster as opposed to that monument of ignorance called Wikopedia. In the United States version of English, a dike is used to hold back water. A dyke is a slang term for lesbian. Sorry, sir, your lack of both education and street smarts shows. Jim "John Smith" wrote in message ... "A dyke (or dike) is a stone or earthen wall constructed as a defense or as a boundary. I fail to really see your point, however, I did not miss the fact you point to your lack of education, I wonder if that was really your intent? |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
link.net... They don't have to collect it. They just pass it down the line to the next agency of the Federal Government that does. FCC did it job just fine. Dan/W4NTI "its" Gosh, you're not infallible. How 'bout that! Kim W5TIT |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
link.net... I didn't know you were so familiar with the rights of the KKK. Please give us more information. I am sure the FBI would be interested.....go head dork. Dan/W4NTI go "a"head, Dork. Gosh you are not infallible. How 'bout that! Kim W5TIT |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
hlink.net... Very impresive indeed Lennie. Got any proof? Your the one that demand proof all the time....put it up right here. You have a scanner, right? "impressive" You're "demands" I never had a need for the 1st or 2nd commercial. Most to all of my electronics technicial work was done with military contractors, or companies that had a 1st ph there already. Of course you do realize that all the first pnones and seconds were just dropped away. So they really didn't amount to much anyway. Of course, pnones? Sorta like the ham tests of today. And hey good deal on passing the on-line tests of today. Pre teen age children do the same with ease. What does that tell you Lennie? And, hey, you, Lennie? I don't belong to the VFW Lennie. They didn't want any Vietnam Vets to join a few years ago (course they want us now), so I gave them their wish. I am a lifetime member of the DAV however. Oh you know them don't ya Lennie? Only way to get in is to be disabled while in military service and have a service connected rating. VFW, Lennie. ('course...) DAV, however. Oh, ya, Lennie? in, is We don't have a local branch I'm sorry to say. I may join with the Vietnam Veterans of America, ain't decided just yet. See ya. Dan/W4NTI branch, I'm. So, several posts, with typical human error. Is that ignorance of the very language you speak, Dan? Remember how you go off on tirades all the time about my "ignorance" of ham radio. Payback is hell, ain't it? I'll quit now. I made my point, even though you'll be indignantly opposed to it. Kim W5TIT :) |
RST Engineering wrote:
Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? But I'm waiting to catch any technological solution to the digital image transmission problem at hand. I read much invective. I read very little that is tangible. Not even how modern video compression techniques could be applied to Amateur TV. *That* is one area in which some advances could be made. But it looks like invective is what we have to settle for. - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote:
Len: The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this thread is rather drab and boring... John, do you have a technical dissertation on digital transmission of imagery on HF? Not how it can be done, of course. That is a given. But how it can be done practically, as in a reasonable amount of time. I agree that Len is quick witted. It keeps me reading his posts. - Ciao - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") The technology is on the shelf, so I take it your real question is, "How come no one has asked/petitioned the FCC to use a "real" video mode on amateur radio yet?" And, if so, if that is your question, I fail to come up with a good answer--but like I stated earlier, listen to some of the data streams you hear on VHF/UHF/SHF--those sound faster than 300 baud modems, don't you think? Or, maybe it is just my imagination? Gee, I never thought of it, you don't suppose a some of those are freebanders, do you? grin You do know we are all going to digital TV soon, don't you? I mean digital broadcast TV, surely by then the hams will take the hint, don't you think? John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? But I'm waiting to catch any technological solution to the digital image transmission problem at hand. I read much invective. I read very little that is tangible. Not even how modern video compression techniques could be applied to Amateur TV. *That* is one area in which some advances could be made. But it looks like invective is what we have to settle for. - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote:
Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
Isn't it quite obvious the best method would be the pci shortwave card to receive and feed the signal to a software decoder based in the same computer as the card and feeding the decoded video signal to the video card of the computer for viewing on the monitor? (I have the sw card and am toying with it in my spare time but have a lot on the plate right now, and I am addicted to news groups, instant messaging, irc and webcams grin) And, a transmitter feeding from an digital output from a software modem running on the computer via the sound card to transmit the digitized video? And, the second best method would be to kludge together an external modem to feed the mic input on a transmitter from a software encoder running on the computer, to broadcast digitized video. And, on the receiving end, the same or a similar modem being feed from a digital output from the transceiver (dac/adc converter installed between transceiver and computer--or implemented as software using the sound card) to a software decoder running on the computer and feeding the computers video card. I mean there are several roads which all lead to the same end here. Plus, a person in the industry with access to the parts and facilities should be able to put together a dedicated device... The one I see in practical use, uses the "kludged modem" dac/adc conversion, it functions well, in well I mean is much superior to SSTV--indeed, it is still in use to this day 15 frames per second of BW video is normal with good signal strength... I am not a "real hardware person" (my degree in that field is from 1972 and makes me a bit of a "hardware dinosaur" frown), I am a hacker (but am able to fool my boss well enough to call me a Sr. Software Engineer in assembly/C++ grin) all I did was write the code to interface the modems/sound cards with the kludged hardware, I can tell you about the data compaction and rs-232 communications between the serial port-computer-modem and the decoding of the digital signal from the sound card back to a video signal to feed to the computers video card/monitor... To put it simply, the way the kludge works is that the "phone line" between the two modems (one on a receiver to grab the "digital video signal" from an output on that receiver, and one on the transmitter to feed the video signal) is just like they work on a phone line, only you have replaced the phone line with a digital modulated audio signal modulating the rf signal... The guy who built the adc (analog to digital converter) and dac (digital to analog converter) says there is a better way to do this via the sound card its digital in/out ports and the transceivers--and ditch the hardware modems all together--we worked on this and have it at "proof of concept" stage, however we never get the time to get back together and realize it as fully functional... To be honest with you, during my whole lifetime I have built a few basic receivers/transmitters and many, many linears and antennas--that is about the extent of my hardware experience. I have been gifted to have family members and friends who have a much greater interest in hardware. Let me be frank on this one point. I would be slow to put you in contact with any of the young men here running this equip.--they are trusting and would be easy to take advantage of and get into trouble. These amateur news groups have demonstrated the true petty nature of hams and how turning a person in for minor infractions of rules and regulations really gets the old women fired up here and calling for blood! I have been burned by petty hams in the past! Certainly here there are hardware gurus who can explain all this much better than my capabilities... where are the hams who are using this technology in the "real world?" I can't believe a "hardware type" hasn't already chimed in here and is already offering block diagrams and schematics on how to build one! Have you insulted all those away? Surely after this post of mine they will chime in... Even if you are not a programmer, I think there is probably a way to make windows media player decode/encode the video to a protocol like ..asf (broadcast media which is already broadcast over the internet via dialup modems at low fps) or such which would be acceptable to broadcast video over the bandwidths in question at acceptable fps (frames per second)... surely there are enough skilled people here to put together a workable project, aren't there? Don't be afraid to speak up hardware techies!!! Or, is Len right, you have slaughtered all the "digital youngsters" with your large dinosaur egos? John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Len: The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this thread is rather drab and boring... John, do you have a technical dissertation on digital transmission of imagery on HF? Not how it can be done, of course. That is a given. But how it can be done practically, as in a reasonable amount of time. I agree that Len is quick witted. It keeps me reading his posts. - Ciao - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
No. I don't think you understand anything. But, I think I read you loud and clear. You want to pretend everyone is making fun of poor old ancient hams and they don't deserve it. Get real, they need it alright, they need to wake up. Get real and quit asking stupid questions. Video broadcasts over the internet are going on all the time--and are of much better quality than SSTV. Now, all you have to do is replace your phone line with a rf signal and you have the same thing between two stations. Not only should a child realize this is possible, but anyone arguing different should be given a three day mental examination. No. I know your game far too well mike, you are sneaky and underhanded. You seek to manipulate the less technical savvy into thinking simple things are impossible just because they are NOT happening on ham radio. The truth is your abusive nature of cheap tricks and manipulative spews of textual attacks have turned off the technically savvy, the youngsters who think in digital signals and they aren't here... we are left with a bunch of ancient know-it-all-hams who can't hit their butts with both hands, huh? No. Truth is you are reaping just what you have sown, you have resisted change and chased off all the younger minds who would bring change with them, then you sent and tap on ancient brass keys (probably vibroflexs from the 70's in reality) and convince yourselves you are doing a "service", you are doing a service alright, it is called a "snow job!" Shame on all your silly butts, and you have only yourselves to blame! John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Len: The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this thread is rather drab and boring... John, do you have a technical dissertation on digital transmission of imagery on HF? Not how it can be done, of course. That is a given. But how it can be done practically, as in a reasonable amount of time. I agree that Len is quick witted. It keeps me reading his posts. - Ciao - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote: Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing. For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing. For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards. Dave K8MN Interesting and true, Dave. But do you really waste your time reading Lennie's posts? The oldster is a Troll and hardly worth responding to. |
Dave:
I find it quite obvious there is no real amateur tv, what you have is what has been stolen from others... let's just make sure in the end the rightful experimenters and developers get credit... .... webcams have just been discovered by hams! EXTRA! EXTRA! Hams discover old technology, get your copy here! ROFLOL live video feeds on vhf have been in use by the police cars in my city for over two years now... and those guys are always behind everyone else! wireless wans have been sending video from webcams between points for longer... get real guys... like rip van winkle you are just waking up to the future... ROFLOL .... hey, what is amateur radio good for anyway, old men to pass gas and rant at each other... ain't it about time you start earning your keep? John "Dave Heil" wrote in message link.net... Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing. For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards. Dave K8MN |
From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:10
Most of us prefer to use Webster as opposed to that monument of ignorance called Wikopedia. In the United States version of English, a dike is used to hold back water. A dyke is a slang term for lesbian. Ahem...dragging down my old "Websters" [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster 1961], I looked under "dyke." All it has there for a definition is "variation of 'dike.'" Sorry, sir, your lack of both education and street smarts shows. Well, that's how it goes...:-) By the way, I've always had two pairs of "dikes/dykes" in my toolbox since around 1947. Formally those are called "wire cutters." However, I've not yet encountered anyone in an electronics lab anywhere that did NOT know what the pronounced familiar name was... :-) Oh, yeah, long ago I learned that a threaded-rod fastener was called a "screw." And its receptacle was a "nut." In a United States high school physics class I learned that a "screw" was one of the Basic Machines! Ooooo...lots of jollies with words! :-) |
From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:12
Not only fired it up, but passed it along to every student every semester from then to now. Sorry, I thought I emailed you back that I thought it was really a great thing. Okay, good on that. Just remember the author. :-) By the way, LCie4's redeeming feature is the ability to change any single L or C value at will to see the difference it makes on filter response...and also to do a Monte Carlo Sensitivity check with L and C tolerance limits. That will become clear when anyone builds a filter from the program data. Sorry it isn't nice and GUI-ey for Windows but that's how it goes with us lazy technical types. :-) |
From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 21:52
Poor Lennie the loser, being such a historian on military and all, just can't get that E5 Chevron arrangement right yet. What I described for U.S. Army NCO sleeve insignia was perfectly correct for the U.S. Army of the 1950s. The E-5 sleeve insignia was equivalent to a Staff Sergeant of WW2 times and "Staff Sergeant" came back some time after 1956 and remains. Since I wore that insignia, was entitled to it, and had my pictures taken (by different Signal Corps photographers and reviewed by Army PR folks, that is just how it was then. There was NO "buck sergeant" (three stripes, no rockers) in the Army at that time. Note: This has NOTHING to do with amateur radio policy except that one PCTA extra is so damn ****ed up in his mind he has to make an issue of "military minutae." Too much Billy Beer on a Saturday night will do that to a moron... All this radio experience is as a what ? Operator? Gee Lennie, how hard is it to push the button and yap into a mic? Or maybe it was you were a fixer eh? I've seen the Army Tech Manuals, What was your echolon me boy? Field perhaps? Not even allowed to change a component, other than a tube. Hope your TV-7/U tester was in top notch shape. I'm not going to repeat what I've already stated in here. If you wish to see what was done, go to: http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment/ and click on any blue link under "Stations" heading. Each is about 10 MB in size, PDF. In FIXED STATION operations and maintenance, a "tube tester" is seldom used. One depends on the meter readings and tuning response during QSYs (frequent for long-haul HF circuits) in addition to the TM's statements on what should be within range. For the GE microwave radio relay terminals (having 360+ tubes per terminal), test point probing with a Tektronix oscilloscope (511AD model) would reveal whether or not a particular tube stage was beginning to misbehave. The General Electric terminals were commercial units and we all used the commercial manuals (you can see one I am holding in the referenced link). The Western Electric LD-T2 HF 4 KW PEP SSB was also a commercial model and all used the WE commercial manuals for it; five of those at station ADA by 1956. The Press Wireless PW-15 (15 KW CW on HF) was also commercial. The 40 KW Linear Amplifiers were labeled as AN/FRT-22 but were Collins Radio commercial transmitters capable of 50 KW CW HF output. Like the microwave terminals, a metal nameplate said they were "military" but, other than that, they were identical to the commercial model. The rest of the transmitters were standard "AN" types, a pre-WW2 design, as were the FSK exciters for all the RTTY RF sources for single- channel RTTY circuits. The VHF/UHF radio relay sets used at the old site of ADA at Tsukishima used receiving type tubes (except for the finals, an 829B, in the AN/TRC-1s) but a "tube tester" wasn't used for any maintenance...they were simply left ON all the time as "hot backups" in case the old site's cable input failed. As to "echelon" of maintenance, any FIXED COMMUNICATIONS site is about as close to "depot" level as any can get. When the mission is to operate 24/7, one fixes malfunctions when they occur. NOW. That was very seldom. Fixed station equipment is designed and built for continuous operation...and it worked that way. At the Camp Owada receiving site it was the same, R-388 and R-390 receivers (Collins Radio) with assorted multicouplers and SSB demodulators, all working around the clock. The torn-tape TTY relay was 220 (approximately) Teletype Corp. machines, olive-drab or black painted versions of civilian Teletype machines. All at 60 WPM equivalent rate. Not one single manual telegraph key used anywhere at station ADA in the 1950s...not even in other-unit message centers. The small MARS station was NOT a part of my Signal Battalion and their only choice for transmitting (third priority) on long-haul HF was through a TTY circuit to transmitters and one from receivers. For operations as Provisional Infantry (should the need arise) we had the AN/PRC-6 handie-talkie (single frequency low-VHF FM push-to-talk) and the AN/PRC-10 walkie-talkie (variable frequency low-VHF FM voice, with internal crystal calibrator, frequency range compatible with PRC-6); push-to-talk H-33 handset. Everything was workable on the march, nobody sat down in the shade and tapped out morse code to communicate. The four-knob AN/PRC-25 (also push-to-talk FM voice) of early Vietnam War era was yet to be designed and built in 1956. Does the MOS 31V mean anything to you ? Nothing at all...and that extends to the U.S. Army. In checking out MOSs at www.goarmy.com and looking under "jobs," there aren't any Thirty-One-Victors listed. To make certain, I went to the Fort Gordon site and searched under the MOS Signal School classes. There were other Thirty-Ones listed by none for Victor suffix. Fort Gordon, GA, is the Signal Center, and the controlling base for all Army communications/computer classes. If a Thirty-One-Victor was your MOS, consider your job skills as DEFUNCT. The Vietnam War ended 30 years ago. Best to adjust for it. The Army has gone on with the soldiering task and uses new style equipment*...unlike so many of the amateur extras content with remaining fixed in several-decades old standards and practices. Defunct. Gone. Went bye-bye. So long...to 31V. This Sunday morning I hope you are not too hung over after all that drinking. I hope you didn't puke on your Kode Klucks Klan sheet even though it still smells bad. Take two aspirin and go play with your code key. * Standard small-unit land forces radio is the SINCGARS family (30-88 MHz, voice or data, in-clear or encrypted, single- channel frequency or frequency-hopping). Manpack unit is AN/PRC-119; several variants for power output using same R/T for vehicular use plus an airborne model. For HF voice or data there is the AN/PRC-104 manpack (includes automatic whip antenna tuner) with any frequency selectable through internal frequency synthesizer. Vehicular variations of same R/T with power amps up to 400 W PEP. The first of the SINCGARS became operational in 1989, the PRC-104 family about 1986. The PRC-119 has undergone the SIP or SINCGARS Improvement Plan at ITT Fort Wayne, IN, resulting in a halving of weight and size. The PRC-104 is coming to a close of its life soon but there are several candidate sets under evaluation to take its place. Both have been "tested in battle" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the various parts of old Yugoslavia.. |
From: "Kim" on Sun 3 Jul 2005 00:51
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message So, several posts, with typical human error. Is that ignorance of the very language you speak, Dan? Remember how you go off on tirades all the time about my "ignorance" of ham radio. Payback is hell, ain't it? I'll quit now. I made my point, even though you'll be indignantly opposed to it. Tsk. A whole six-pack of Billy Beer will do that. :-) As somebody once wrote in here once, "Ya jes' cain't fix stupid!" Or, I might add, a drunkard... |
From: "John Smith" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 16:19
Len: The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this thread is rather drab and boring... Thank you. "It's a rough job, but SOMEBODY has to do it..." ... doesn't the chanting from the ARRL/FCC monks and worshipers ever annoy you? It drives me nuts! grin Yes it does. I just grab a bottle of aspirin. Not the tablets, just the nice cotton padding in the top of the bottle. Easy to work into nice ear stopples. :-) The silence is golden! Shhhhh...... Oh, I should explain the "Tut, Tut" ending of my previous message. You and I know that the Egyptian government's King Tut exhibit is in Los Angeles for a couple months. Others who only believe that "the South" is the United States won't know that. [they might believe it came from Cairo, Illinois, though...] :-) bit bit |
There was a comedian (a Brit, I believe) that had a routine called "clean
and dirty" that went something like this: Hen is a clean, cock is a dirty; Bolt is a clean, screw is a dirty; Cat is a clean.... and he could actually go on for about ten minutes ... it was a very good schtick. As I recall, George Carlin did a takeoff on this, but I can't remember the details. Jim wrote in message oups.com... From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:10 Ooooo...lots of jollies with words! :-) |
rst
I was wondering where you got your silly material from, did you ever notice it gets quite tiring? John "RST Engineering" wrote in message ... There was a comedian (a Brit, I believe) that had a routine called "clean and dirty" that went something like this: Hen is a clean, cock is a dirty; Bolt is a clean, screw is a dirty; Cat is a clean.... and he could actually go on for about ten minutes ... it was a very good schtick. As I recall, George Carlin did a takeoff on this, but I can't remember the details. Jim wrote in message oups.com... From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:10 Ooooo...lots of jollies with words! :-) |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: Very impresive indeed Lennie. Got any proof? Your the one that demand proof all the time....put it up right here. You have a scanner, right? No. That would be me. Do you have something that needs proved? I never had a need for the 1st or 2nd commercial. What's your problem? I've never had a need for morse code, but I took the tests. Got the GROL at the same time I passed the Advanced and Extra writtens. Didn't do so hot on the morse code tests back when I was actually interested. Most to all of my electronics technicial work was done with military contractors, or companies that had a 1st ph there already. Of course you do realize that all the first pnones and seconds were just dropped away. So they really didn't amount to much anyway. Sorta like the ham tests of today. And hey good deal on passing the on-line tests of today. Pre teen age children do the same with ease. What does that tell you Lennie? I don't belong to the VFW Lennie. They didn't want any Vietnam Vets to join a few years ago (course they want us now), so I gave them their wish. Do you grant everyone their wish? I am a lifetime member of the DAV however. Oh you know them don't ya Lennie? Only way to get in is to be disabled while in military service and have a service connected rating. My brother belongs to DAV. I belong to VFW. My dad is active in the American Legion. What's this all about? A place to drink beer? We don't have a local branch I'm sorry to say. You meant a "post." Start one. I may join with the Vietnam Veterans of America, ain't decided just yet. Never heard of them. See ya. Thanks for the warning. ;^) |
From: "John Smith" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 20:50
Mike: No. I don't think you understand anything. But, I think I read you loud and clear. You want to pretend everyone is making fun of poor old ancient hams and they don't deserve it. Get real, they need it alright, they need to wake up. Good posting, John, you've synopsized what most of the silent readers have already surmised about these Ancient Radio Astronauts that no one was in search of. Coslo "wants" a super-simple explanation so that he and other Titled, federally authorized amateurs can look down on others while holding up their super-special morse keys, gloating in triumph of "achievement." I will fill in a few blanks (or rather, blank stares) for the morsemen... For "education" on information compression, there is Claude Shannon's 1947 paper that explained the basic laws. The rest of the radio world gave it a peer review and accepted it en toto. The full paper is archived at the University of Illinois website and may be elsewhere. "Shannon's Law" has been given in so many communications textbooks of the last half century that it is a major months' work just to do a bibliography. It is universal, it is accepted. The many pages on statistics involved aren't necessary to fully understand the concept (thousands of others have already gone through them with critical fine-teeth combs and passed it). "Shannon's Law" relates Rate-Bandwidth-Noise- Error in as elegant a form as possible. It is absolute. It is the Touchstone, the Bedrock in communications. ALL communications, NO exceptions. Once the basic relationship is accepted, the student can then turn to information reduction-compression, especially in the high redundancy of human speech-symbolism-utterance-imagery. The SECOND version of "morse code" (the one including letters and some punctuation, the first one was only numbers) owes much to even earlier manual type setters. In English the letter E is the most frequently used one, so type setters arranged their type case/holders with the E slugs at easy reach. Alfred Vail, Morse's financial angel, saw that and suggested it to Morse. In that way morse code's letter E is the shortest possible data information bit, a single "dit." The other letters followed - roughly - the type setters' arrangements, less-used letters having longer time completions. Punctuations are given long time sequence completions, occurring less often than letters. Numbers are of approximate same length, apparently in a hold-over of Morse's first code scheme (unknown, that is really arbitrary except to those who just want to argue angels on heads of pins busy-work). The end result was a rather complex sequence of short-long-interval time-related BITS to represent the major components of the ENGLISH language, native to Morse and Vail and most everyone in their 'hood. Enter the Morse-Vail Telegraph System, now patented, in 1844. Primitive in electrical terms but vastly faster than message transport by horseback and something that will work through visual obscuration (as in the European visual semaphores). The heart of the Morse-Vail Telegraph is the RELAY, all else is secondary. By replacing the ink pen of the first telegraph "receiver" with a solenoid-activated key/switch, a whole new circuit can be created to EXTEND THE LENGTH of the original one, this time with another battery (very primitive in 1844) that could extend the whole telegraph path fourfold then... for the equivalent of "positive copy" using more modern terms. This worked remarkably well for its time, was reasonably economical then, and the ink pen traces could be "read" with very little training by unfamiliar "operators." Note: All "telegraphers" were required to read-write English (or their native language for foreign adapters of the system) since the "telegarph code" was just a REPRESENTATIVE of the characters of the language. As the Morse-Vail Telegraph system spread (remarkably for its time), the ink pen tracings were replaced by acoustic "sounders," the same ink pen solenoid arms now striking some semi- resonant device to create audible clicks. Telegraph operators were now required to have good hearing as well as the (rare then) reading-writing pre-knowledge/skill. Each telegraph circuit required a telegrapher at each end, first to transpose the sender's written message into the telegraph symbolism, a second specialist at the receiving end to re-convert dots and dashes to the written language readable by the recipient. The concept of the RELAY applies to radio by simply replacing the wire lines with the electromagnetic waves of radio, the transmitter controlled by the telegraph key switch, the radio receiver having some sort of acoustic sounder equivalent (nearly always headphones due to lack of amplification). Early radio was exceedingly PRIMITIVE, totally lacking in active amplifying devices such as the vacuum tube triode. Spark- discharge damped-wave-oscillation "transmitters" were their own "BFOs" for primitive "receivers" so that a receiving operator could discern the on from the off by the growl of the spark transmitter. This was stone-age technology hardly different from the primitive electrical lines of 1844. Primitive "information compression" had already begun in wireline telegraph systems, everything from short-form numbers for common salutations ("73" for written 'best regards') to five-character groups standing for entire sentences (common in commercial communications such as in the many-edition Bentley's Commercial Code books). With the beginnings of radio (heartily endorsed by the maritime people as something they never had before - over-the- horizon-communications!) came a whole new set of shorthand such as "Q" and "Z" 'codes' standing for whole phrases and sentences. [Q and Z are least-used English language letters, thus would be less confused with English words beginning with those letters]. Information compression had arrived although it was attributed to the "magic" of the telegraph, a misattribute but advantageous to the boosters of the new "technology" of radiotelegraphy. Lurking off to one side of this new "miracle technology" called radio was the teleprinter. Teleprinting sought to find a direct link from sender to receiver by dispensing with human specialists of telegraphy...for security reasons, for personal reasons, for an increase in communications time (cutting down the transposing and decoding in manual telegraphy). Work on development of teleprinting had already begun in the mid-1800s, hampered more by machining capability and mechanical devices than the primitive electricity of its time...but utilizing character codes each having the SAME length of time. The end of teleprinting experiments showed that was a necessity to permit automatic decoding of teleprinter signals at the receiving end. That equal-time coding can't be grasped intuitively except by comparisons to unequal-time codings such as "morse code" or even the human languages spoken-heard. Human languages have HIGHLY UNEQUAL lengths of time to convey information. The exact reasons are not fully known but it is a common fact...yet everything from emotions to complex abstract concepts can be communicated by human languages (whether or not the receptor is able to comprehend any of them). It has been suggested that the HIGH REDUNDANCY of human speech (and its written form) is a form of "error detection"...or the ability to "work through QRM or QRN in more modern radio terms." The end result is that spoken and written languages take a lot of time just to communicate. This is a sidelight to information coding, applicable but not a prime example of it. Teleprinter equal-time-per-character encoding/decoding has definite advantages for separating communications from noise. Noise is random. Signals are repetitive. Machines and circuits can separate the two logically. In addition, the equal-time- per-character timing allows actual noise-distortion-CORRECTION by logic circuits, either in-line or off-line. No long-time multiply-redundant information transfer is required. Such can be done by mere doubling of teleprinter character code times to include parity error-detection and correction bits. While teleprinting is also a representation of a written language, the SAME shorthand that was applied to "morse code" can be applied to teleprinting. Note: There is much "noise" (largely QRM, not QRN) from manual telegraphers in the form of myths and "magics" of telegraphy that obscured the advantages of teleprinting. This derived, perhaps, because telegraphy (simpler in technology) came first and thus had a chance to establish its PR basis. Another, more subtle, was that the speed, security, and relative economy of teleprinting caused business, commerce, and governments to eventually displace manual telegraphy with teleprinting. All of those "downsized" manual telegraphers were lacking a trade to ply their specialized skills. "Radio" appeared just in time to rescue many of those manual telegraphers, give them new jobs. By the 1930s teleprinting was the mainstay of written communications worldwide...despite the insistance of manual telegraphers that this was not so and thus generating so much man-made QRM. Teleprinters could operate for hours on end at equivalent 60 WPM rates then, needing no breaks for sleep, ingestion of food, or elimination of wastes...just feed them paper and ink ribbons, oil them once in a while, and they can run 24/7 if needs be. Segue to 1915, AT&T, the first vacuum tubes, and the first real "radio." John Carson of AT&T showed his mathematical equations describing the spectral contents of the three basic carrier wave modulations: Amplitude, Frequency, and Phase. Amplitude modulation is doubly redundant in the spectrum (but does not need to remain that way to convey information). One modulation sideband could be eliminated without losing any information! AT&T applied that to wired long-distance lines to create the first use of "single sideband." Primitive information compression but yet true information compression (of an analog kind). Advance to 1948, keep AT&T in the picture, add hundreds of researchers on Information Theory (sparked by Shannon's Law) and cryptology and the basics of logic circuits (using tubes as Athanasof's Ohio State U. first computer did) and Information Theory spreads in a mushroom of megatons of new capabilities. Bell Labs announces the birth of the transistor, the new messiah for all electronics. In the next two decades the "modem" is born...first at a relative snail's pace of 300 WPM equivalent...then 1200 WPM...then on to 2400 WPM...until finally beginning to nudge the limit of Shannon's Law at a rate equal to 56,000 Words Per Minute! [five 10-bit ASCII characters plus an equal time space make up a "word" here] Recall that basic AM was described in 1915. But, a common plain old telephone line has a bandwidth of only about 3 KHz (slightly more but it drops off rapidly after 3 KHz). Sending 56 THOUSAND anythings per second is "impossible?" No, it is established fact and nearly everyone in here does that every time they log onto an ISP. What a 56K modem does is to COMBINE both AM and PM in a digital way, add a soupcon of Information Coding in an elegant way in silicon hardware and voila(!) a seeming "impossibility" is proven fact. No "magic." Just clever (I'd say Machiavellian) innovations on using already proven laws to accomplish this "impossibility." A 56K modem principle of operation is NOT intuitive...except maybe to an electronic genius (I am not such). It requires familiarity with many different areas of existing technology that are not classical "radio" (that being old-time analog only circuitry of the 1930s-1940s). The only impossibility is trying to describe How It Works in a short message; it isn't possible in a long message, even with binaries allowed (not allowed in this newsgroup). Yet it WORKS. Daily. By the hundreds of thousands worldwide every minute. The technical details are Out There for those that wish to study it. Immediately the key-banging beepers will shout "that isn't ham radio!" It is definitely NOT the "ham radio" of the 1930s. Ham radio of then didn't have RTTY nets, let alone "computers" of today to arrange QSOs via the Internet. :-) But, the PRINCIPLE of Information Coding/Theory applies and the 56K modem is a ubiquitous example of today. SCALING of RATE does apply in any Information Coding/Theory. One can go lower in rate, keep the bandwidths narrow as the minds of those stuck in 1930s technology. Look at PSK31. PSK31 was devised/innovated/elegantly-conceived by Peter Martinez, G3PLX. It is capable of 30 WPM sustained rate equivalent in a narrowband space no wider than that used by a manual radiotelegraph circuit. Teleprinting. The modem is in hardware-software, not the operator's wetware. Martinez displayed a willingness to experiment, to try out the new, to innovate, as he did three decades before using the polyphase network to generate SSB (in Radio Communications magazine of 1973, I have copies of that). SCALING of rate and some clever adaptations of Coding Theory did the trick. It works. But, it took a LONG time to appear over on this side of the Pond. Hams in Yurp tried it out first. Ham-wise, the much- ballyhooed "Yankee Ingenuity" was nowhere to be found...nor the courage to TRY...all were too busy talking of their "radiosport" scores and certificate awards (suitable for framing) and telling tall tales of their "pioneering the radio arts" (by others done much earlier). American ethos (and mythos) were all centered around manual morsemanship. Why would (as Coslonaut and Flint) anyone WANT to send a half-Gigabyte streaming DVD data on HF?!?!? Ridiculous. But...what CAN be done in the narrowbanded, marrowminded playground of HF is DATA of many kinds. "PicturePhone" video, perhaps, slow-speed imagery so that everyone can sit around their ham shacks and admire each others' radio gear? Can be done in the spectralspace of a SSB phone signal. Digital Radio Mondial is now broadcast on HF from Europe and Asia in over two dozen programs each day. It is digital on HF, can be digital on LF, MF, and VHF, all without taking more spectral space than an AM broadcast. It works, despite the ignorant protestations of narrowbanded narrowminded amateurs emphasizing the glory and nobility of morsemanship "working through when nothing else will" in usual brags. A possibility of what can be done is 1200 Baud (1200 WPM) data streamed through a bandwidth of 250 Hz using a combo of amplitude and phase modulation...the equivalent modem being the RF source. Perhaps 2400 WPM in a 500 Hz BW, either data rate faster than what is normally done now on HF and, by experience, quite fast enough for BBS downloading and message handling. It could make the ballyhooed "NTS" a force equal to its overblown reputation. Such will not be accepted by the narrowband, narrowminded crowd who will demand seeing the Blessing of the league first, then ads in QST featuring peripherals at a given price, before believing it is possible. Even then they would not understand anything but the ads in QST. Now, all you have to do is replace your phone line with a rf signal and you have the same thing between two stations. Not only should a child realize this is possible, but anyone arguing different should be given a three day mental examination. The very first radios did exactly that to wired telegraph systems. The vaunted ARRL started that way...actually doing the equivalent of hacking commercial telegraph systems (one has to read the ENTIRE league history in order to find that gem but it is there). But, radio amateurs STOPPED there and very few went further. The league did much the same. No. I know your game far too well mike, you are sneaky and underhanded. You seek to manipulate the less technical savvy into thinking simple things are impossible just because they are NOT happening on ham radio. The olde-fahrts (chronological or mindset) are the ultimate hobbyist conservatives. Anything new/revolutionary must meet some kind of "test in battle" to "prove its worth." [and, of course, have such product ads in QST as double proof] No. Truth is you are reaping just what you have sown, you have resisted change and chased off all the younger minds who would bring change with them, then you sent and tap on ancient brass keys (probably vibroflexs from the 70's in reality) and convince yourselves you are doing a "service", you are doing a service alright, it is called a "snow job!" But...But...they have "qualified" by federal test! :-) They are federally authorized to turn their mighty stations' HF carriers ON and OFF in that epitome of all communications modes, morse code! And READ the same signals without anything but a simple receiver! Deus ex machina meets state-of-the-art! They have TITLES! [certificates suitable for framing to amaze their family, friends, and neighbors] Morsemen are the TOP Grade! They have reached the ULTIMATE in upgrading! They are AMATEURS, far greater and far better than any evil (hock a loogie to them) professionals in radio! They must be because they say they are...! :-) |
Hey Kim.....so what?.....At least I didn't pay (how many bux???) for a
callsign that brings sham on yourself. How you like that? Dan/W4NTI "Kim" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message hlink.net... Very impresive indeed Lennie. Got any proof? Your the one that demand proof all the time....put it up right here. You have a scanner, right? "impressive" You're "demands" I never had a need for the 1st or 2nd commercial. Most to all of my electronics technicial work was done with military contractors, or companies that had a 1st ph there already. Of course you do realize that all the first pnones and seconds were just dropped away. So they really didn't amount to much anyway. Of course, pnones? Sorta like the ham tests of today. And hey good deal on passing the on-line tests of today. Pre teen age children do the same with ease. What does that tell you Lennie? And, hey, you, Lennie? I don't belong to the VFW Lennie. They didn't want any Vietnam Vets to join a few years ago (course they want us now), so I gave them their wish. I am a lifetime member of the DAV however. Oh you know them don't ya Lennie? Only way to get in is to be disabled while in military service and have a service connected rating. VFW, Lennie. ('course...) DAV, however. Oh, ya, Lennie? in, is We don't have a local branch I'm sorry to say. I may join with the Vietnam Veterans of America, ain't decided just yet. See ya. Dan/W4NTI branch, I'm. So, several posts, with typical human error. Is that ignorance of the very language you speak, Dan? Remember how you go off on tirades all the time about my "ignorance" of ham radio. Payback is hell, ain't it? I'll quit now. I made my point, even though you'll be indignantly opposed to it. Kim W5TIT :) |
Slow Scan Television is not dead. Tune into 14.230 and/or 14.233 and you
will hear all sorts of it. Please get your facts right before ranting. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") The technology is on the shelf, so I take it your real question is, "How come no one has asked/petitioned the FCC to use a "real" video mode on amateur radio yet?" And, if so, if that is your question, I fail to come up with a good answer--but like I stated earlier, listen to some of the data streams you hear on VHF/UHF/SHF--those sound faster than 300 baud modems, don't you think? Or, maybe it is just my imagination? Gee, I never thought of it, you don't suppose a some of those are freebanders, do you? grin You do know we are all going to digital TV soon, don't you? I mean digital broadcast TV, surely by then the hams will take the hint, don't you think? John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? But I'm waiting to catch any technological solution to the digital image transmission problem at hand. I read much invective. I read very little that is tangible. Not even how modern video compression techniques could be applied to Amateur TV. *That* is one area in which some advances could be made. But it looks like invective is what we have to settle for. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Yep, just like car shows, you see a few model A's there too.
John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message hlink.net... Slow Scan Television is not dead. Tune into 14.230 and/or 14.233 and you will hear all sorts of it. Please get your facts right before ranting. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") The technology is on the shelf, so I take it your real question is, "How come no one has asked/petitioned the FCC to use a "real" video mode on amateur radio yet?" And, if so, if that is your question, I fail to come up with a good answer--but like I stated earlier, listen to some of the data streams you hear on VHF/UHF/SHF--those sound faster than 300 baud modems, don't you think? Or, maybe it is just my imagination? Gee, I never thought of it, you don't suppose a some of those are freebanders, do you? grin You do know we are all going to digital TV soon, don't you? I mean digital broadcast TV, surely by then the hams will take the hint, don't you think? John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the mis-spelling? But I'm waiting to catch any technological solution to the digital image transmission problem at hand. I read much invective. I read very little that is tangible. Not even how modern video compression techniques could be applied to Amateur TV. *That* is one area in which some advances could be made. But it looks like invective is what we have to settle for. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing. For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards. Correct. SSTV is hardly TV at all, being still images. And ATV is indeed the transmission of moving images, and there is a very good reason that it is at UHF frequencies. This link may be of some help: http://news-server.org/n/ny/nyquist_...g_theorem.html - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com