|
That is bizarre.
The way it really works... (well, in the real world--probably NOT amateur radio grin) You read the bytes from the ccd camera at 30 fps (or 10, or 20, or whatever) Process this digital data as you please, format, snip, enhance, etc--compress/encrypt and send the bytes (8, 16, or 32+ bit words) at the fps you would like, but equal to or less than the fps read from the ccd cam and in sync with what the receiver expects or can handle. At the receiving end, you uncompress the bytes and send them to the video card. You watch the picture on the monitor. .... end of story ... You would really have to work at it to make it harder than that, or lack sufficient understanding. John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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 - |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net... 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 "shame" Kim W5TIT |
|
|
|
Len:
I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... .... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. 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... |
John Smith wrote:
Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday-- they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Who is "they", John? I don't hate anybody on rrap. I like some more than others but "hate" is too strong a word. The problem you, Len and a few others share is simple: You have confused the destination with the journey. |
"John Smith" wrote You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Literally billions and billions of people worldwide have joined Len in protest by never applying for an amateur license --- untold billions! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have CB sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have FRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have GMRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have MURS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have marine VHF sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have cordless phones! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have any sort of "wireless" communications! What an impressive protest, people before their time! dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am 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. That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to change regulations in something in which you are not remotely involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer 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] What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio. You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it all wrong". You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't intentionally funny. 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. It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for several years. It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability. Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the third world where price, battery power and portability are prime requirements. I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM stereo and 8-track tapes. How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and video? A bit of difference there maybe? A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" They did? Name them. Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like audio. Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth. How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Of course. Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one station or when a group of stations desires to converse roundtable-style. Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically. 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 scaling isn't the problem, wizened one. For video and images it is. 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. You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come up with a pass to enter the park. Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we can use methods that use more bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances. Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum might have something to say about it also! 8^) 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. Does complex and newer equal better? Is analog simpler than digital? Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there is to offer. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
What the heck are you referring to as DRM? DRM or "Digital Rights Management" is a form of copyright protection and should be avoided at ALL costs. DRM has nothing to do with amateurs running webcams via radio. Unless you are afraid someone is going to steal your video! John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am 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. That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to change regulations in something in which you are not remotely involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer 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] What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio. You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it all wrong". You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't intentionally funny. 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. It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for several years. It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability. Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the third world where price, battery power and portability are prime requirements. I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM stereo and 8-track tapes. How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and video? A bit of difference there maybe? A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" They did? Name them. Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like audio. Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth. How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Of course. Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one station or when a group of stations desires to converse roundtable-style. Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically. 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 scaling isn't the problem, wizened one. For video and images it is. 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. You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come up with a pass to enter the park. Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we can use methods that use more bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances. Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum might have something to say about it also! 8^) 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. Does complex and newer equal better? Is analog simpler than digital? Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there is to offer. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY:
"They" are the all important youngsters in high schools and colleges across this nation. "They" are the ones I am working with and ask directly, "How about getting an amateur license?" "They" are all the women who take one look at the code and go away laughing. "They" are the only ones who matter... John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday-- they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Who is "they", John? I don't hate anybody on rrap. I like some more than others but "hate" is too strong a word. The problem you, Len and a few others share is simple: You have confused the destination with the journey. |
KXHB:
Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John "KXHB" wrote in message k.net... "John Smith" wrote You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Literally billions and billions of people worldwide have joined Len in protest by never applying for an amateur license --- untold billions! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have CB sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have FRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have GMRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have MURS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have marine VHF sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have cordless phones! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have any sort of "wireless" communications! What an impressive protest, people before their time! dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
"John Smith" wrote However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John, You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else. Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
KXHB:
I support NCI myself. Now, that part about John Wayne as a gay hairdresser in a western, I damn near died laughing from the visual image your words inspired in my mind, when I read your words. That certainly would have been a great comedy and would have stood out in the annals of movie history, too bad you were not a movie director back then! grin They just don't know how to make movies like they used too... John "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "John Smith" wrote However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John, You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else. Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Most of that is incorrect. First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being "transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on. Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for transmission of understandable communication (however, this is required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc) Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, except with the possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software. Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and suitable to ones needs, an example: Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3 --in video-- Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5 However, any of this requires a sound and current education and knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously lacking here. John wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote:
Len: Keep a stiff upper lip man, only poor breeding reduces one to name calling and personal attacks--they seek to include you among their ill-bred lot. Says one who engages in name calling. |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: Most of that is incorrect. Most of what? First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being "transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on. That's what "Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission." means, John. Whether it's done in "real time" is just a detail. Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for transmission of understandable communication (however, this is required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc) Signal-to-noise is an integral part of Shannon's thereom. It cannot simply be "forgotten". Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, No, that's not correct. The discussion is about transmitting pictures and video on the amateur HF/MF bands. RF bandwidth is a very important thing there. except with the possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software. And the simplest way for hams to do that at HF/MF is to use an SSB transceiver and a computer with a sound card. But that's not the only issue. Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and suitable to ones needs, an example: Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3 --in video-- Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5 And make sure the folks at the other end are similarly equipped. However, any of this requires a sound and current education and knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously lacking here. Yes, John, your lack of a sound and current education about amateur HF/MF communications is quite evident. Good to see you admitting it. There's also the issue of FCC regulations. Of course those regulations can be changed, and there are several proposals in development or before the FCC to change them. But until they are changed, amateurs will be constrained by the current rules, such as the 300 baud limitation on HF. The vast majority of hams are not going to break those rules, regardless of the available technology or their education. The question raised by KB3EIA and N8UZE remains: How can video be sent in a 2.5 kHz RF bandwidth on the amateur HF bands? I've answered that question in a theoretical way. I don't think you even understand the question and all its implications, John. wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... KXHB: Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John Since all the "new action" is VHF and higher and that doesn't require a code license, code should be no detriment. Or is some one fibbing to them either directly or by omission so that they do not know about the codeless Technician license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
N2EY:
that is all wet. Although an increase in bandwidth can be used to transmit more data, what we are discussing is the protocol of binary transmission in the form of video data and in an agreed upon structure over a roughly ~5K audio bandwidth--or--simply put, data throughput measured in bits (or bytes, or words (16 bits), or double-words (32), etc, per second. This all can be done with existing, common equipment modified to do so, and easily at rates of 56K, over the audio bandwidth of most transceivers (or with minor modifications of the transceivers audio circuits), with most remain ignorant to the fact it is being done at all! If some hams want to jack around all the standards and methods which are already in place--screw with current terminology and "encode" all this to "ham words/terminology/technology" with the hope of obfuscating the facts and making it appear that the hams have invented the internet, have at it! I am sure the digital youngsters will find this a strong draw to amateur radio. The technology has been out there for over a decade, in everyday use for 5 years or better, and now is used widely in industry for security monitoring, etc. You can buy it off the shelf... The real experimenters have now moved on and use nothing less than 100MBS+ nic cards and wireless wans interfaced to transceivers through computers over spread spectrum... which some one will point out is a violation of FCC regs for amateur radio bands. It will probably be another 10 years before hams "invent" this new gig. Possibly longer if they sit around and argue whether it can be done or not... ROFLOL John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Most of that is incorrect. Most of what? First you use "on the fly" encryption/decryption/"data compaction" and have it occurring in "real time." This has the effect of being "transparent" and the user is not even aware that it is going on. That's what "Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission." means, John. Whether it's done in "real time" is just a detail. Next, forget the sn/noise ratio other than it has to acceptable for transmission of understandable communication (however, this is required no matter what the form of data--i.e., voice, ssb, cw, etc) Signal-to-noise is an integral part of Shannon's thereom. It cannot simply be "forgotten". Next, listen to digital signal occupying audio bandwidth (it is audio bandwidth that is of concern here, NOT rf bandwidth, No, that's not correct. The discussion is about transmitting pictures and video on the amateur HF/MF bands. RF bandwidth is a very important thing there. except with the possibility of fm and how you implement the data compression and transmission, i.e., just make it fit the existing rf bandwidth and NO changes are needed--however, larger rf bandwidth will ALWAYS result in a drastic increase in transmission speed and wideband fm can easily offer itself to 1MBS and faster) a digital signal can be treated just like a analog signal if desired, the use of CRC checksums and error checking of the data is just more intense under these circumstances and there is NO standard established for this--so you MUST be able to make and use your own custom hardware and software. To avoid this, just grab off the shelf digital hardware/software. And the simplest way for hams to do that at HF/MF is to use an SSB transceiver and a computer with a sound card. But that's not the only issue. Next, for every patented form of audio video protocols there are FREE forms, usually the free ones are more acceptable, efficient and suitable to ones needs, an example: Use ogg vobis compression of audio as opposed to mp3 --in video-- Use xvid as opposed to divx 4-5 And make sure the folks at the other end are similarly equipped. However, any of this requires a sound and current education and knowledge of the state of technology--and something which is obviously lacking here. Yes, John, your lack of a sound and current education about amateur HF/MF communications is quite evident. Good to see you admitting it. There's also the issue of FCC regulations. Of course those regulations can be changed, and there are several proposals in development or before the FCC to change them. But until they are changed, amateurs will be constrained by the current rules, such as the 300 baud limitation on HF. The vast majority of hams are not going to break those rules, regardless of the available technology or their education. The question raised by KB3EIA and N8UZE remains: How can video be sent in a 2.5 kHz RF bandwidth on the amateur HF bands? I've answered that question in a theoretical way. I don't think you even understand the question and all its implications, John. wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! No one hates him but everyone gets tired of his derogatory remarks and antiquated stories. You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... I cannot believe that you have polled tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands about getting a license. Most of those people don't even know amateur radio exists let alone its requiements. Most of us think it is silly to cut off your nose to spite your face. And most of us know it is far more effective to attempt changes from the inside rather than remaining on the outside and looking in. ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Again no one hates him but simply will not tolerate his derogatory comments. The moment that someone disagrees with him, he starts in on that approach and continues in that vein despite the fact that some of us have persisted in remaining polite and not calling him names. Some of us finally have refused to feed the troll and do not respond to his posts. John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Most at VHF to SHF+ freqs have no license and don't want one--I am speaking HF here. Most only want to be able to speak to others in new zealand, australia, malaysia, indo-asia, britian, etc... Something which they bypass vhf+ for, those who are not freebanders use the internet there and chat internationally... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... KXHB: Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John Since all the "new action" is VHF and higher and that doesn't require a code license, code should be no detriment. Or is some one fibbing to them either directly or by omission so that they do not know about the codeless Technician license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Frankly I am surprised you are so offended over his "derogatory remarks", you all seem so asleep to the real world that short of striking you over the head with a two-by-four you will remain in this dream-like state. Positive is not always good, except to "new agers" studying mysticism and crystals, and I have no time for silliness... If offended by reality one can always change reality or change themselves--I have always found the latter more productive. He (Len) battles a whole klick of you which are functioning like a damn support group--and you don't let little things like reality, "real world", sanity and facts get in your way. You all begin your chants of known mantras and chase the light-weights away! You all exist in an echo chamber using the echo of your own words as "valid arguments", or to site "majority agreements." Get real, to any cutting edge people, they feel like they have entered the twilight zone when here! You realize, I was quite offended as a young man when my parents would ask me to empty the garbage--then I grew up and realized in the real world someone has to do it... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! No one hates him but everyone gets tired of his derogatory remarks and antiquated stories. You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... I cannot believe that you have polled tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands about getting a license. Most of those people don't even know amateur radio exists let alone its requiements. Most of us think it is silly to cut off your nose to spite your face. And most of us know it is far more effective to attempt changes from the inside rather than remaining on the outside and looking in. ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Again no one hates him but simply will not tolerate his derogatory comments. The moment that someone disagrees with him, he starts in on that approach and continues in that vein despite the fact that some of us have persisted in remaining polite and not calling him names. Some of us finally have refused to feed the troll and do not respond to his posts. John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: Frankly I am surprised you are so offended over his "derogatory remarks", you all seem so asleep to the real world that short of striking you over the head with a two-by-four you will remain in this dream-like state. Positive is not always good, except to "new agers" studying mysticism and crystals, and I have no time for silliness... If offended by reality one can always change reality or change themselves--I have always found the latter more productive. He (Len) battles a whole klick of you which are functioning like a damn support group--and you don't let little things like reality, "real world", sanity and facts get in your way. You all begin your chants of known mantras and chase the light-weights away! You all exist in an echo chamber using the echo of your own words as "valid arguments", or to site "majority agreements." Get real, to any cutting edge people, they feel like they have entered the twilight zone when here! You realize, I was quite offended as a young man when my parents would ask me to empty the garbage--then I grew up and realized in the real world someone has to do it... John To be effective in the real world, one does not insult people with derogatory remarks. In my profession, I frequently have to convince people that the new is better than the old. Insults and put downs would get me thrown out the door and cost me a job. It doesn't get a whole lot more real than that. It takes tact along with accurate and verifiable data to implement new proposals. The cutting edge people in the real world know this although it may come as a shock to those in academia. Len does not use tact and does not present accurate and verifiable data. Dee d. Flint, N8UZE |
From: "John Smith" on Sun 3 Jul 2005 21:06
Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You are getting there, sort of...it's actually deeper than that. You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... See the classical reducto ad absurdum response of Hans Brakob. :-) Most of the commentary by the "regulars" (nearly all Pro-Code Test Advocates (PCTA) amateur extras is predictable and worded in the classical "league-speak" that has washed their brains. They are few and NONE of the are, in any way, "representative" of the "amateur community" despite what they exclaim. NONE of them (Brakob included) accept any contrary commentary and each feels that their tight clique must remain sound...regardless... The "reply" that is a classic reduction-to-the-absurd of Brakob is just one style of highly-negative response to "outsiders" (those who do not think as the clique does). Heil stresses the "personal involvement" as if he is a moral arbiter of all but that is his only remaining retort and the glass of the retort is cracked. Miccolis is firmly entrenched into a mindset of amateur radio of days prior to his existance...a condition that may have been caused by way too much rereading of ancient copies of QST enshrined in his basement. Kelly is basically a blustering Philly Tuff Guy who don' take nuttin from nobody! Flint is one of the truer products of league pre-conditioning ("brainwashed" in familiar terms) but, to her credit, defends the Newington barricades vigorously. Robeson is the emotional wreckage of an exploded loose cannon littering the imaginary battlefield. Jeswald ("Dan/W4NTI" who apparently changed his surname) acts the southern-fried good-ole-boy and is little more than a braggart, nasty when drunk. There have been others, but the above coterie (perhaps 'cotillion' of ancient debutantes/dilettants) makes up the "representative" body in here. Each is a Special Interest Group of One. They purport to be the "Voice of Amateur Radio" yet all speak solely for their own particular desires and each holds to an intimation that they are the proper role model for others. ["all must do as they did to be as good as they"] Thousands of others interested in radio have come on various scenes before I did. THEY are the ones that pushed forward for the no-code-test Technician Class license creation. Such was created. The God-fearing morsemen all sounded the Hue and Cry with the "death of amateur radio (without the beloved code test to show the "dedication and committment to the amateur community")" on their lips. At present, the "lesser-class" licensees in U.S. amateur radio (Technicians) amount to 48.43% of all individual licenses as of 2 Jul 05. That was achieved in a scant 14 years. Had the Technician classes not existed, U.S. amateur radio licensees would have shrunk to less than 60% of its current size now. The intrinsic appeal of morse code ("try it you'll like it!") is nebulous, more vapor than substance. Amateur radio - as the olde-fahrts knew it - IS beginning to shrink. Without change, it WILL die out...but after the olde- fahrts do. The olde-fahrts are Holding Back The Dawn, fearing the sunshine of new ideas like vampires trembling at sunrise. At best, their "new ideas" exist in the "new band" trials at 600 meters...the old 500 KHz maritime distress and safety frequency that was. "CW" of course. All is morsemanship in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraph Society)...that "cutting edge mode" exemplifying "keeping up with the state of the art." "Bang the Carrier Slowly" would be an alternate title. ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! Not really. I disturb their self-image of expertise and elitism. I challenge their brags with some experience in HF and VHF and UHF and microwaves communications. That is the breaking of illusions they harbor, a sort of mental Krystalnacht of theirs and they feel persecuted, seek vengence and retribution for disturbing their fantasies of glory, honor, and nobility. [I pop their balloons] Others have been the pioneers of NCTA-ism. They were before me. They deserve the credit, not me. I'm simply outspoken and on the other side of them. They can't handle it...the league hasn't instructed them on how to handle such humans...they revert to middle school taunts, acting like middle-aged children. Tsk, tsk. :-) And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. The PCTA hear not. The olde-fahrts holding back the dawn hear not. They will resist until the last code key is pried from their cold, dead fingers. They WERE "operators." |
From: "John Smith" on Mon 4 Jul 2005 08:35
KXHB: I support NCI myself. Now, that part about John Wayne as a gay hairdresser in a western, I damn near died laughing from the visual image your words inspired in my mind, when I read your words. That may be due to Hans not getting a good comb-over yet... bit bit |
wrote The "reply" that is a classic reduction-to-the-absurd of Brakob is just one style .... In your case, Anderson, "reduction" isn't required. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dee:
Developing a sense of humor and being able to have "fun" poked at oneself is viewed as desirable by some, indeed, those who take themselves far too seriously are an offence to me--whether they realize it or not, sometimes I am polite and don't point that out (rarely though. grin) As a side note, I am running MS Agent (Microsoft Agent--all components of this are either already in windows xp or downloadable for windows 95 and up, a friend in france supplied me with the french engine) text-to-speech and speech-to-text engines. I find with the french library of phonics I am able to chat with french speakers to a remarkably good degree of success, and I am the only one which needs to run the software, doing ALL translation on my end solely! (but makes "me" sound rather "robotic" when I "speak" french. grin A transceiver, computer/"sound card" and the free software is all which is necessary to begin using/experimenting (the speech phonic library(s) may have to be purchased for some languages--I am unclear on this, and an ability to a software programmer or access to a programmer is highly suggested.) I am beginning to look upon this as Capt. Kirk's "universal translator", when the aliens finally show up (and can supply me with a proper speech engine) I plan on being among the first to verbally greet them! grin Anyway, this is an area where experimenters should come. As, I know of only a handful of techies experimenting here and of no "successful" commercial products on the market. If there exists any of a competitive nature, here are the waters to weigh anchor and hold battle! John Video, at this point, is pretty much "ho-hum stuff." John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: Frankly I am surprised you are so offended over his "derogatory remarks", you all seem so asleep to the real world that short of striking you over the head with a two-by-four you will remain in this dream-like state. Positive is not always good, except to "new agers" studying mysticism and crystals, and I have no time for silliness... If offended by reality one can always change reality or change themselves--I have always found the latter more productive. He (Len) battles a whole klick of you which are functioning like a damn support group--and you don't let little things like reality, "real world", sanity and facts get in your way. You all begin your chants of known mantras and chase the light-weights away! You all exist in an echo chamber using the echo of your own words as "valid arguments", or to site "majority agreements." Get real, to any cutting edge people, they feel like they have entered the twilight zone when here! You realize, I was quite offended as a young man when my parents would ask me to empty the garbage--then I grew up and realized in the real world someone has to do it... John To be effective in the real world, one does not insult people with derogatory remarks. In my profession, I frequently have to convince people that the new is better than the old. Insults and put downs would get me thrown out the door and cost me a job. It doesn't get a whole lot more real than that. It takes tact along with accurate and verifiable data to implement new proposals. The cutting edge people in the real world know this although it may come as a shock to those in academia. Len does not use tact and does not present accurate and verifiable data. Dee d. Flint, N8UZE |
Len:
Lighten up, I think he has real potential as a comedian and/or movie director! And, I am only half joking! I'd pay to watch the movie he suggested, good belly laughs are hard to come by these days! John Wayne in that role would be perfect to evoke such! John wrote in message ups.com... From: "John Smith" on Mon 4 Jul 2005 08:35 KXHB: I support NCI myself. Now, that part about John Wayne as a gay hairdresser in a western, I damn near died laughing from the visual image your words inspired in my mind, when I read your words. That may be due to Hans not getting a good comb-over yet... bit bit |
Len:
That "vampire/sunshine" thing, that is good, can we use that in that others guy movie with John Wayne? grin I picture a bunch of amateurs in coffins with transceivers, and suddenly a young man shows up ripping coffins wide open, at high noon, by the OK Corral!!! John wrote in message ups.com... From: "John Smith" on Sun 3 Jul 2005 21:06 Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You are getting there, sort of...it's actually deeper than that. You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... See the classical reducto ad absurdum response of Hans Brakob. :-) Most of the commentary by the "regulars" (nearly all Pro-Code Test Advocates (PCTA) amateur extras is predictable and worded in the classical "league-speak" that has washed their brains. They are few and NONE of the are, in any way, "representative" of the "amateur community" despite what they exclaim. NONE of them (Brakob included) accept any contrary commentary and each feels that their tight clique must remain sound...regardless... The "reply" that is a classic reduction-to-the-absurd of Brakob is just one style of highly-negative response to "outsiders" (those who do not think as the clique does). Heil stresses the "personal involvement" as if he is a moral arbiter of all but that is his only remaining retort and the glass of the retort is cracked. Miccolis is firmly entrenched into a mindset of amateur radio of days prior to his existance...a condition that may have been caused by way too much rereading of ancient copies of QST enshrined in his basement. Kelly is basically a blustering Philly Tuff Guy who don' take nuttin from nobody! Flint is one of the truer products of league pre-conditioning ("brainwashed" in familiar terms) but, to her credit, defends the Newington barricades vigorously. Robeson is the emotional wreckage of an exploded loose cannon littering the imaginary battlefield. Jeswald ("Dan/W4NTI" who apparently changed his surname) acts the southern-fried good-ole-boy and is little more than a braggart, nasty when drunk. There have been others, but the above coterie (perhaps 'cotillion' of ancient debutantes/dilettants) makes up the "representative" body in here. Each is a Special Interest Group of One. They purport to be the "Voice of Amateur Radio" yet all speak solely for their own particular desires and each holds to an intimation that they are the proper role model for others. ["all must do as they did to be as good as they"] Thousands of others interested in radio have come on various scenes before I did. THEY are the ones that pushed forward for the no-code-test Technician Class license creation. Such was created. The God-fearing morsemen all sounded the Hue and Cry with the "death of amateur radio (without the beloved code test to show the "dedication and committment to the amateur community")" on their lips. At present, the "lesser-class" licensees in U.S. amateur radio (Technicians) amount to 48.43% of all individual licenses as of 2 Jul 05. That was achieved in a scant 14 years. Had the Technician classes not existed, U.S. amateur radio licensees would have shrunk to less than 60% of its current size now. The intrinsic appeal of morse code ("try it you'll like it!") is nebulous, more vapor than substance. Amateur radio - as the olde-fahrts knew it - IS beginning to shrink. Without change, it WILL die out...but after the olde- fahrts do. The olde-fahrts are Holding Back The Dawn, fearing the sunshine of new ideas like vampires trembling at sunrise. At best, their "new ideas" exist in the "new band" trials at 600 meters...the old 500 KHz maritime distress and safety frequency that was. "CW" of course. All is morsemanship in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraph Society)...that "cutting edge mode" exemplifying "keeping up with the state of the art." "Bang the Carrier Slowly" would be an alternate title. ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! Not really. I disturb their self-image of expertise and elitism. I challenge their brags with some experience in HF and VHF and UHF and microwaves communications. That is the breaking of illusions they harbor, a sort of mental Krystalnacht of theirs and they feel persecuted, seek vengence and retribution for disturbing their fantasies of glory, honor, and nobility. [I pop their balloons] Others have been the pioneers of NCTA-ism. They were before me. They deserve the credit, not me. I'm simply outspoken and on the other side of them. They can't handle it...the league hasn't instructed them on how to handle such humans...they revert to middle school taunts, acting like middle-aged children. Tsk, tsk. :-) And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. The PCTA hear not. The olde-fahrts holding back the dawn hear not. They will resist until the last code key is pried from their cold, dead fingers. They WERE "operators." |
From: K0HB on Jul 4, 3:58 pm
wrote The "reply" that is a classic reduction-to-the-absurd of Brakob is just one style .... In your case, Anderson, "reduction" isn't required. Ah, but that is EXACTLY what you did with those "billions and billions" "statements!" YOU thought they were "required!" :-) bit bit |
From: Dee Flint on Jul 4, 3:13 pm
"John Smith" wrote in message Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! No one hates him but everyone gets tired of his derogatory remarks and antiquated stories. Antiquated Stories and Deragatory Remarks: 1. Hiram goes to Washington in 1918 to save ham radio's future! 2. Hams "pioneer SW [HF] bands" after 1923. 3. Saipan is "saved" by hams loading up a fence! 4. AM broadcasting is begun in 1906 (by a carbon mike in the antenna lead to "modulate" it...the technique for all subsequent AM broadcasters!). 5. "CW gets through when nothing else will!" (from 1930s) 6. "Putz! "Technician!" etc. (from loose-cannon Robeson) You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... I cannot believe that you have polled tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands about getting a license. Most of those people don't even know amateur radio exists let alone its requiements. YOU have "polled all those people" to PROVE they "don't even know amateur radio exists?" We didn't know that! :-) Most of us think it is silly to cut off your nose to spite your face. And most of us know it is far more effective to attempt changes from the inside rather than remaining on the outside and looking in. Tsk, tsk. Amateur radio is only ONE "window" to the EM spectrum. A rather small one at that. I've been looking through "windows" (plural), lots of them, bigger ones, for the last half century. From the "inside." :-) Might I suggest you WASH your little "window?" It would make it far easier for others to see into that small room called ham radio. Then again, you might NOT want "outsiders" to look in. :-) ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Again no one hates him but simply will not tolerate his derogatory comments. The moment that someone disagrees with him, he starts in on that approach and continues in that vein despite the fact that some of us have persisted in remaining polite and not calling him names. All that "politeness" and "non" name-calling by all of you "us" is archived in Google. :-) "Horrid!" isn't it? :-) [your word, not mine...] Some of us finally have refused to feed the troll and do not respond to his posts. Ah! "Politeness!" Those you do not like are called "trolls!" :-) Hypocrisy is your handmaiden... Tsk, for someone who "does not respond," there seems a rather strong, lengthy, and "antiquated" RESPONSE! :-) bit bit |
From: Dee Flint on Jul 4, 3:40 pm
"John Smith" wrote in message Dee: Frankly I am surprised you are so offended over his "derogatory remarks", you all seem so asleep to the real world that short of striking you over the head with a two-by-four you will remain in this dream-like state. Positive is not always good, except to "new agers" studying mysticism and crystals, and I have no time for silliness... If offended by reality one can always change reality or change themselves--I have always found the latter more productive. He (Len) battles a whole klick of you which are functioning like a damn support group--and you don't let little things like reality, "real world", sanity and facts get in your way. You all begin your chants of known mantras and chase the light-weights away! You all exist in an echo chamber using the echo of your own words as "valid arguments", or to site "majority agreements." To be effective in the real world, one does not insult people with derogatory remarks. ...except in computer-modem communications! :-) In my profession, I frequently have to convince people that the new is better than the old. Hello? What "profession" is that? :-) I've only been in the electronics profession for...um...53 years now. Life Member in the IEEE, an international professional association. Guess that doesn't count, does it? :-) Is this newsgroup participation a "profession?" Insults and put downs would get me thrown out the door and cost me a job. It doesn't get a whole lot more real than that. Oh, I think that 53 years of actual professional participation might agree with you...and also disagree with you. Have you ever been on both sides of a Design Review meeting? :-) It takes tact along with accurate and verifiable data to implement new proposals. ...which doesn't apply to REMOVING an ancient test element for a radio hobby license. :-) Where is the "tact" and "accurate and verifiable data" to support the subjective claims, necessities, nobilities, expertise of morsemanship for a radio hobby? Ain't there, is it? :-) The cutting edge people in the real world know this although it may come as a shock to those in academia. ...which means what? Morsemanship is "cutting edge" comms? :-) [put the cover back on your jar of academia nuts] Len does not use tact and does not present accurate and verifiable data. Tsk. I've used hundreds of tacts to nail your morsemanship to the carpet and you still think that carpet will fly! :-) I'd best re-do my PowerPoint files, then? I'd use Vu-Graphs but your projector's bulb is burned out... bit bit |
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... KXHB: Go ask the college and high school students in the EE fields why they do not obtain amateur licenses. I have asked, it is the code which they cite at least 90% of the time. However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John Since all the "new action" is VHF and higher and that doesn't require a code license, code should be no detriment. Or is some one fibbing to them either directly or by omission so that they do not know about the codeless Technician license. One the NoCode status of the tech license is not that well known. Indeed until 26 day before I had my license I did not know of the no Code license, this aas after year of the no code licesne Two lots of folks (lets leave it vauage) go on and and on about how you can't do anything with the tech licesne Three VHF is hardly where the New action is Microwves Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
KØHB wrote:
"John Smith" wrote However, you guys don't care, and will go on speaking like that is not true. Put your butt in a car, drive over to your local college and have a chat with an electronics engineer professor there and the students--then perhaps you will realize we who know are looking at you like some crazed manic reciting a ridiculous mantra about code not being a hindrance and the real reason amateur radio is dying... John, You're new around here, so I'll bring you up to date. I am a long time member of NCI, and I do not support continuation of the Morse test, so spare your jeremiads about "you guys don't care" for someone else. Since we're all having a heart to hear here.... I guess I should note that I do not use Morse code (even though I support the testing) at all. So much for typecasting at least you and me, eh? I guess I might also note that I make my coin in digital imagery. We would love it if a person came up with a method of transferring decent size, decent fidelity pictures in reasonable amount of time using a small bandwidth. At HF frequencies..... Having said that, your characterization of Len as a "man before his time" is the most laughable miscasting since someone suggested John Wayne play the part of a queer hairdessser in a movie about the old west. But it makes for interesting reading 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Mike:
Oh no. Now someone is going to have to explain ccd cams and pixels to you, huh? Take a course! The short course goes, "a pixel either relates to a byte, a word (16 bits) or a double-word (32-bits, or larger)--you grab the pixels from the cam (bytes, words, etc)--you compress them, you send them, the guy at the other end uncompress them, sends them to his video card and views them... Geesh, are you guys all setting around the same computer in some old age home? If you even mention old analog cams from some Smithsonian the guys in the white coats will be here! John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? Two steps: 1) Convert the pictures and video into highly-compressed digital formats for transmission. Oooh, there could be a problem there! There are limits to the compression, and we have exceeded them in some forms already. Check to see how many vertical pans there are on video signals lately. The compression on the digital signals (note that even if you are getting your feed via analog cable, you are still almost certainly looking at a digital signal) already calls for some major aliasing. There are limits, and there are limits. How much more are we going to throw away? 2) Use different modes/modulations/protocols Shannon's Theorem tells us that we can get very high data rates through very narrow bandwidths *if* we have adequate signal-to-noise ratio. Note that "noise" takes many forms, not just the thermal noise we're used to. What're we going to do when the data rate that we need is darn near(or above) frequency in use? For example, PSK has an advantage over OOK when dealing with thermal noise. But when dealing with other types of noise, OOK can have an advantage. It all depends on the transmission medium. What works on a telephone line may not work on an HF path of the same apparent bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? You can do that now - just need enough S/N. Always? Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. And software. I really didn't think it was all that simple. Why don't we get together and pop off a live video system for say the 160 meter band. The video would be real time, 30 fps, and otherwise like broadcast video. Better yet, Why don't we do it at computer resolution? Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. There are all sorts of solutions. But there's a world of difference between people talking theory and actual application. I did hear that DRM was capable of doing imagery. I couldn't find any examples tho'. And they were very vague about it. Most of all, some folks confuse the journey and the destination. The journey beats all..... Does complex and newer equal better? Sometimes. Not always. Is analog simpler than digital? Sometimes! Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? Some folks think so! I don't. And besides - "digital expert" doesn't mean someone knows much about radio. Ain't that the truff? I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Are you surprised? Nope. It doesn't make for a very good discussion tho'. Appears to be what there is to offer. Now consider how effective such a person would be trying to sell amateur radio - with or without a code test. They might attract others of their ilk. I'll bet they like some of the "wonder antennas" that keep cropping up... - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: John Smith on Jul 4, 4:26 pm
Len: Lighten up, I think he has real potential as a comedian and/or movie director! And, I am only half joking! I'd pay to watch the movie he suggested, good belly laughs are hard to come by these days! John Wayne in that role would be perfect to evoke such! Okay...such as Erich von Stroheim doing light comedy? :-) He might even direct Owen Wilson as a heroic action hero! Maybe a Hardy Boys series? "Hardy Boys go to Newington!" [starring Jim Nabors and Richard Chamberlain] It would be more entertaining to watch that true-life documentary "Independence Day." ["morse code saves Terra!"] Excuse me, I've got to polish up my PowerPoint presentation files to meet the requirements of Our Girl Flint. buy, buy, bit bit |
Len:
Keep a stiff upper lip man, only poor breeding reduces one to name calling and personal attacks--they seek to include you among their ill-bred lot. A little "blood letting" is good for the spirit, just don't take 'em seriously. It is a gorilla war here, I will grant you that, some just wear gorilla suits, others really are. John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jul 4, 4:26 pm Len: Lighten up, I think he has real potential as a comedian and/or movie director! And, I am only half joking! I'd pay to watch the movie he suggested, good belly laughs are hard to come by these days! John Wayne in that role would be perfect to evoke such! Okay...such as Erich von Stroheim doing light comedy? :-) He might even direct Owen Wilson as a heroic action hero! Maybe a Hardy Boys series? "Hardy Boys go to Newington!" [starring Jim Nabors and Richard Chamberlain] It would be more entertaining to watch that true-life documentary "Independence Day." ["morse code saves Terra!"] Excuse me, I've got to polish up my PowerPoint presentation files to meet the requirements of Our Girl Flint. buy, buy, bit bit |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com