|
John Smith wrote:
Mike: I just did better than that, I have given you enough rope until you have gone on and proved yourself an "argumentive nut." Do a google, somewhere out there others have duplicated the work, I am sure, it just isn't that easy to come up with something all that original. Someone else has done it and probably created a webpage about it. I came here for personal pleasure, and you are NOT my idea of it... I will let others now tell you why this can be done easily, I have run out of patience with you. Besides that, I have seen your type before, after someone practically builds one and sticks it in your hand, you turn around to the world and claim you "invented" it, I see you coming... ROFLOL You are a broken record of "it's impossible!" Suck it up man, it ain't! Yup, that is the response I expected. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
Ok, I will give you the real secret, get your grandson to put one together for you. You can claim you did it, how will we ever know? John "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Mike: I just did better than that, I have given you enough rope until you have gone on and proved yourself an "argumentive nut." Do a google, somewhere out there others have duplicated the work, I am sure, it just isn't that easy to come up with something all that original. Someone else has done it and probably created a webpage about it. I came here for personal pleasure, and you are NOT my idea of it... I will let others now tell you why this can be done easily, I have run out of patience with you. Besides that, I have seen your type before, after someone practically builds one and sticks it in your hand, you turn around to the world and claim you "invented" it, I see you coming... ROFLOL You are a broken record of "it's impossible!" Suck it up man, it ain't! Yup, that is the response I expected. - Mike KB3EIA - |
I figured this out, this is Mac Amateur World! Kind of similar to Mac
Donalds World. Oh look, there is the Mac 'Tenna--invented my amateurs. There is the Mac Radio--invented by Mac Amateurs. There is the "Mac Amateur Desk" invented by amateurs and, the Mac Chair.... Ohh my gawd, I have only heard about it!!! There is the Mac Internet invented by Mac Amateurs with a Mac WebCam hooked up and running a Mac Operating System (probably true, I expect this bunch to run Macintoshes!!!) And, those are real Mac Applications running on it (probably true again.) With a Mac Mouse, Mac Keyboard and Mac Monitor (sad, but probably true again.) And over there!!! A Mac Data Compaction algorithm invented by the original "Mac Amateur", how exciting! Yeppers! A real "Mac World" out there! John "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Mike: I just did better than that, I have given you enough rope until you have gone on and proved yourself an "argumentive nut." Do a google, somewhere out there others have duplicated the work, I am sure, it just isn't that easy to come up with something all that original. Someone else has done it and probably created a webpage about it. I came here for personal pleasure, and you are NOT my idea of it... I will let others now tell you why this can be done easily, I have run out of patience with you. Besides that, I have seen your type before, after someone practically builds one and sticks it in your hand, you turn around to the world and claim you "invented" it, I see you coming... ROFLOL You are a broken record of "it's impossible!" Suck it up man, it ain't! Yup, that is the response I expected. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Buzzard:
You more than justify my efforts... John "Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: cmd buzz off: Occasionally there are good reasons for a nice name call, such as in your case... John I see, so you are part of the 'ill-bred lot". |
John Smith wrote: Dee: Will you agree that a 56K phone modem, does indeed, transmit this data rate with an audio bandwidth of ~300Hz to ~5000K, and if you do so agree, how can you argue this cannot fit in a HF AM RF signal which only goes 2.5K each side of center frequency?????????? Of course it can. The question is whether the RF path will have characteristics comparable to those of the telephone line. Are you NOT imposing an audio frequency of AT LEAST a 5K bandwidth on the rf carrier with normal speech? No. Typical ham transceivers only need about 2.5 kHz of audio bandwidth. (actually, most quality transceivers have a wider audio bandwidth than this which can be set +/-) and if you agree you are indeed, how can you argue that 5K bandwidth can carry a 56K data rate over a phone line--and NOT a hf rf signal???? That looks insane to me? It's a question of the characteristics of the RF path. Certainly there are some paths that will support the amplitude- and phase- stable requirements of the 56K modem - and some paths that won't. On top of that is the fact that most RF paths aren't full duplex. How fast is the 56K modem in half-duplex with transmit-receive switching? The modem is NOT using the whole 5K bandwidth--necessarily, there is compression into a narrower bandwidth which can and is generally software controlled--if necessary (the modems software is a LOT smarter than most give it credit for, especially in the case of the old "onboard processor" and "hardware logic" USRobotics external modems. You need to explain to me why it even begins to look difficult to you for me to be able to understand what you are asking? As, I have to be missing something here... You are. Do you think HF offers the same transmission characteristics as a telephone line? You know, I have not even looked to see on the web, but aren't tons of people doing this right now as we newsgroup? On telephone wires or HF radio? I suppose you could actually use the rf signal as data carrier itself and modulate it directly through on/off switching, as opposed to modulating the rf carrier with the audio data carrier... but that would take some heavy duty equip mods/revamps, if it didn't wipe out the neighbors cable tv! grin Think about this: at 100 mhz if you can precisely control the EXACT amplitude of each and every cycle of rf out the back end of the xmitter, you have a virtual 100mbs data carrier... most are working here... 450 MHz? 1Ghz? 12Ghz? Think about the stability of the RF path at HF. ... and of course, the receiver has to be able to decipher the amplitudes of each cycle back to a data stream for the video card... ... this is the land where dreamers are... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Mike: 300 baud is ridiculous, in Dee's first post mentioning 300 baud I tossed it out the window--that was fine up to about 1985, then only the mentally challenged continued to run 300 baud modems! Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
From: "Dee Flint" on Mon 4 Jul 2005 20:59
"K=D8HB" wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote So here we are. Yup, and no one has persuaded me it can't be done. I've only been persuaded that we haven't figured out how yet. (Sorta reminds you, doesn't it, of how those old-tymey hams must have felt when they were to= ld to take their party to "200 meters and below".) You, Jim, and Dee bemoaning how hard it will be, and John raising the tantalizing notion that we may only be a few "eureka!!!"s away from something workable. Outside my area of competence, but I'll watch the dialog with interest. 73, de Hans, K0HB Frommy understanding of John's comments, he is saying it can be done now with current technology. I've seen live, streaming video on my computer years ago, all working through ONLY the 3 KHz bandwidth of my single telephone line. There ARE thousands of examples. Today. He does not however tell us how. This newsgroup does not support binaries with the attendant schematics, simplified diagrams, equations, etc., etc., etc. There are dozens of BOOKS available "in the engineering profession" (as well as purchaseable from Amazon.com) on the subject. He just chatters on about "compressing it enough" without stating the degree of compression, etc. "In the engineering profession" (where I've been for decades) lots of Design Reviews had "chatting." They also had arguments, sometimes heated, where one would adamantly REFUSE to believe in an explanation...! Senior type, titled, etc., etc., etc. [several anecdotes could be inserted here but I digress...] Sound familiar? :-) INFORMATION compression is going on all the time in nearly ALL communications media. [I use "information" rather than "data" to avoid the emotional baggage associated with "lesser" forms of amateur communications, "lesser" relative to the epitome of all amateur radio modes (morse code). Most wired telephone calls are digitized, compressed, re- expanded on circuits to distant central offices. Modems operating on telco lines (limited bandwidth of about 3 KHz) do it locally. Webcams - at the arbitrary Coslo standard of 7 frames per second or faster or slower - do that over the same telco bandwidth. Wired telemetry of many and varied forms coupled through telco circuits do that. All of those operate in bandwidths almost exactly that of an amateur SSB voice circuit. Hey I'm all for the "eureka" when it happens but the problem is that it is unpredictable. Do you wish for EXACT dates of miracles? Scheduled epiphanies? :-) Or aren't you just being snarly for the purposes of winning message points for yourself in this newsgroup? Not only is it unpredictable in time but in the nature of the breakthrough. How can you say that, given that you are "in the engineering profession?" Have you given up reading of the breakthroughs in recent history of the "engineering profession?" They are many. A retrospective: 1. Ed Armstrong was told his FM system won't ever be as good as good old, practical, used-every-day AM (then all of a bit over a decade old) and that he should give up. FM broadcasting got very practical...evolved not only to binaural ("stereo") sound (compatible with monaural) but also to carry an isolated, independent sound circuit (such as "storecast"). It works. 2. Mobile FM was described as impractical, wouldn't work as good as AM, but Link and Motorola said phooey to that and proved it was good, beginning with police department two-way radios prior to WW2. The U.S. military saw that, said great, lets do that for everything from backpack walkie-talkies to tank radios. It works. 3. Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier modulation is inefficient, impractical, too costly, too complex for amateur radio use said the olde-tyme hamme old-fahrts. "You can't get me to believe it works!" said many in private. It's now standard voice on HF. It works. 4. You can't make an active amplifying device without vacuum or gas said the olde-tyme tube makers. Three guys at Bell Labs showed them different back in 1948, eventually won a Nobel Prize. A new hire at Texas Instruments, not allowed a company vacation, made the first integrated circuit during the plant close-down. [Jack Kilby, who recently passed away after many many honors] Integrated circuits are now a mainstay in all electronics (which includes "radio"). [I am looking at a virtual 17-inch integrated circuit called an "TFT flat panel display" with at least one transistor junction per pixel as I write this] Solid state devices work well. 5. It is impossible to send data through a 3 KHz bandwidth at faster than 300 bits per second (300 Baud) said the literalist lookers-at-only-conventional-modulation-simplistic-explanations. Impossible! they kept saying at each stage of rate increases to 1200, then 2400, then 9600, and finally to 56,000 bits per second. Those all work fine. [56K modems are near bumping the upper limit of Shannon's Law] 6. Olde-tyme experts involved with analog image transmission insisted one needs much bandwidth to transmit video, at least 4.5 MHz for NTSC, 5.0 MHz for PAL. IT MUST BE THAT WIDE! they shouted. MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group) said not quite and proved it. The "Grand Alliance" (industry-broadcaster association) evolved HDTV which carries 20 MHz analog bandwidth video, quadraphonic sound, closed-captioning text with alternate languages, and an optional isolated sound channel all in digital WITHIN a 6 MHz bandwidth...the video having nearly double the pixel resolution of old NTSC analog video. It works. Not only that, it works with perfect clarity down to the minimum RF signal level. 7. AT&T brought out "PicturePhone" in the 1960s. Rather wide bandwidth but with some compression by slowing frame rate, it evolved to work over standard telco lines (and limited bandwidth). It failed, not from anything technical, just from customers turning the picture OFF for privacy. It was withdrawn for reasons of not producing a profit. After divestiture a number of entrepreneurs tried various schemes of their own, but with marginal acceptance in the market. One-way broadcast-like "webcams" are the only result...but do allow streaming video over dial-up, limited bandwidth telco lines connecting to the Internet. "Slow-scan" works well technically, just ins't accepted. 8. Good old reliable manual telegraphy was 56 years old in 1900, mature industry that had spread worldwide. Average throughput was perhaps 20 words per minute. Then teleprinters got developed and standardization had begun. Teleprinting TOOK OVER the wired manual morse code telegraph business and "telegrams" began being sent by teleprinter. Morsemen were being "downsized" (out of work, replaced by 60 word per minute machinery operable by non- specialists). Radio saved them from finding new work. Electro- mechanical teleprinters eventually evolved to 100 words per minute in commerce, industry, and government. Then the electro- mechanical teleprinters were themselves "downsized" by electronic data transmission means, much faster, and with on-line encryption for security. 9. You can't possibly put a two-way radio in a telephone handset (along with image and data transmission) that works at microwave frequencies cried the olde-tyme telephone experts...they will all interfere with one another they echoed. The U.S. Census Bureau said that two years ago the number of cellular telephone in the USA had reached 100 MILLION subscribers. Cell phones are now a part of our lives. They fit easily into a shirt pocket or purse. They work well in a cell area. 10. You can't possible send thousands of digitized voices over a single optical fiber cried the communications experts decades ago. It isn't as good or practical as copper wire lines they sang in chorus. Fiber-optic carrier systems now operate at 4 GHz bits per second and are self-repeating (amplification) by means of a second optical "pump" wavelength. The longest carrier line in the world goes from the UK through the Med through the Indian Ocean, around southeast Asia and on up to Japan. It works. 11. You can't possibly put a mainframe computer in every home said the experts of 1960. One expert even said that no more than a dozen mainframes would do the entire job of computing for the USA then. Today's personal computers in laptop size have 100 times the clock rate, 1000 times (or more) mass memory storage than the largest mainframe computers of 1960...and cost less than $2000 each (for laptops, half that for desktops). Those work very well...except for some operators of same. 12. You can't possibly put an entire 3-hour motion picture on a single CD said the movie experts of 1970, citing the equal impossibility of putting 6 hours worth of music on the same size disk! The MPEG showed them how. Today DVDs are fast replacing the older bulkier VHS tape cartridges and music CDs have taken over from vinyl disc "LPs." All the major auto makers make options for having DVD players for back-seat passengers; my wife and I declined that option on buying a new Malibu MAXX two weeks ago...the standard MAXX rear sound console with wireless headsets (stereo) was good enough for us. The DVD works very well. 13. Todays ready-built amateur transceivers are more digital than analog, "bells and whistles" are an easy task to add with a good programmer and interface designer...can include memories, a separate "split" VFO, digital signal processing, even a spectral display to see signals on either side of what you are tuned to...all for less than $4K (list) or slightly more if the entire "radio" is to be controlled entirely by a personal computer. Imagine what the size of those would be if done entirely in analog circuitry...couldn't possibly fit on a desktop. Want squeaky-narrow bandwidths for that 109 year old style radiotelegraph signal? Easy, just use DSP, all digital using a microprocessor operating at high clock rates. All of the above happened within my lifetime. I watched some of it happen even before being IN the engineering profession. My father and father-in-law were both born in the year 1900...a year before Marconi got his S across the Atlantic, three years before the Wrights finally succeeded in sustained HEAVIER-THAN-AIR flight at Kitty Hawk. They both watched the first humans walking on the moon over live television in their lifetimes. "Breakthroughs" are always happening. If you really pay attention to the engineering profession you are "in," you would see that. Those happen because a few humans have the curiosity, the willingness to TRY to make something new work. They are seldom disauded by the self-propelled "experts" who say "it can't possibly work!" Or, you can sit back in the recreation of yesteryear, championing a 161-year-old primitive manual communication mode, getting all kinds of nice certificates (suitable for framing) for becoming expert at carrier-banging and pronounce judgements upon the "improper" attitudes of others...in a recreational radio HOBBY. "CW gets through when anything else will" - B. Burke |
From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:03
K=D8=88B wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote So here we are. Yup, and no one has persuaded me it can't be done. I've only been persu= aded that we haven't figured out how yet. (Sorta reminds you, doesn't it, of= how those old-tymey hams must have felt when they were told to take their pa= rty to "200 meters and below".) You, Jim, and Dee bemoaning how hard it will b= e, and John raising the tantalizing notion that we may only be a few "eureka!!!= "s away from something workable. He also give a lot of solid technical ways in which this can be done, = eh? Coslonaut, this newsgroup is NOT an educational institution. Binary files containing schematics, pictures, other diagrams are not allowed here...along with PPT files and other slide stuff necessary to TEACH the iggorants. Outside my area of competence, but I'll watch the dialog with interest. Hey, Hans, ignorance is not a crime! The Coslonaut has intimated so, demanding an Instant Education into Information Theory in as few words as possible. Note that Jim brought up an *actual* method of trying to do a lot of BW using 256 or more phase angles that are decoded by the receiving station. Tsk, he should write a Paper on that and submit it somewhere. [harf!] That is not likely to work at HF, but a simplified version of this is used for some satellite comms. So, what do you "think" makes a 56,000 bit per second modem work over 3 KHz bandwidth telephone lines? "Some satellite comms?" Which "some?" Be specific. The geosynchronous orbit positions for communications satellites have all been filled three years ago. they (see my link in my post to Jim) note that QPSK is more reliable - or at least suffers less from link degradation - same thing, than 8PSK. But there is some theory there that can be discussed. There are hundreds and hundreds of other sources for THEORY available for free over the Internet, ranging from simple to math-heavy complex. You choose as you wish for YOUR personal education. And as for "bemoaning", I have been asking for something based in solid theory since early in this thread. Most of what I have gotten in return is that I am an olde tyme ham (untrue) stuck on CW with my Bug (paraphrased, but laughably untrue), and topic shifted to DRM voice (technically working, but beside the point). That ain't substance. Do you think every single posting in here is a "judgement on your technical competence?!? How long have you had this paranoic compulsion? Seek help. DRM voice AND music is NOT "beside the point." It works. On HF. Can be on LF through VHF. It has been working for five years, successfully. Its future will be determined by the shortwave broadcasting market (not a lucratie one since the beginning of radio) listeners. DRM uses both information compression and digital signal processing to shape its spectral content into a 12 KHz maximum bandwidth. The same principles can squeeze voice only into a 3 KHz bandwidth. The information compression and digital signal processing is NOT an easy-to-digest subject. It requires many hours of study to begin to get started knowing what it is about. You want simplistic solutions in single messages, then become emotionally upset when you don't get them. Tsk. What you have for viability, for proof, is that there are MANY different methods to send good communications through limited bandwidths. Those have been named. The next step is up to you, whether you are sincere in a desire to learn or not. Nobody is going to waste their personal time and energy giving you a FREE education. You have NOT earned that yet. bit bit |
From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:36
K=D8=88B wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. So, fit it into 3KHz, if that will be legal. John's system is forthcoming soon. Live video will be broadcast on HF, probably in a few months. The Coslonaut bragged over reaching "the threshold of space" last year. It is now nearly mid-summer and there are no signs of his amazing feat (for which he wanted much praise) announced last year and going where other hams have gone before. Now the CEO-effective of Coslonautics wants a FREE education of live, streaming, theater-quality moom pitchas over HF...when he can't seem to grasp the fundamentals of how 56K modems work. Weird science in here. Tsk. Coslonaut, suck up a flaggon of Fed Std ALE before you get lost in your own snarly rhetoric. You need some downers of some kind. bit bit |
From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:46
John Smith wrote: I'm willing to help you with the initial experiments. In fact, in the interest of the furtherance of Ham radio, science, and mankind, I have challenged you to produce such a system. Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no flight, no tests, no words. "Up up and awaaayyyyy....!" We are all awaiting your famous flight to advance ham radio, science and mankind in general. Yawn.... bit bit |
N2EY:
First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. The second modem can be a USR internal if you don't have two serial ports for externals. To run duplex with one modem, there is some kind of patch device they used to keep the receiver output from getting on the mic input of the transmitter (but the modem had simultaneous access to both)--and for the life of me, I can't remember what it was called, first time I had ever seen one. When I get a chance, I will ask about it. You might know what it is/was? Second, it works, build one--or--draw it on paper and decide it does not work. I am on to other things, I got tired of webcams years ago. Don't even video chat on irc, MSN Messenger, ICQ messenger or yahoo messenger much anymore. And that is much easier than "Mac Amateur IM." I can tell, this argument will shortly switch to rules and regulations, it always does, and I have no interest in having such recited to me. Expect only my bad nature in return. I didn't do the hardware or even know the "true nature" of the signal which comes out of that modem and hits the phone line or a mike in. I just toyed with the software and watched it work--it "lived" in my garage for a year or so. I am into my "universal translator" these days and trying to set up to chat fluently with the russians... I think the russian girls are kind of cute... grin John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Dee: Will you agree that a 56K phone modem, does indeed, transmit this data rate with an audio bandwidth of ~300Hz to ~5000K, and if you do so agree, how can you argue this cannot fit in a HF AM RF signal which only goes 2.5K each side of center frequency?????????? Of course it can. The question is whether the RF path will have characteristics comparable to those of the telephone line. Are you NOT imposing an audio frequency of AT LEAST a 5K bandwidth on the rf carrier with normal speech? No. Typical ham transceivers only need about 2.5 kHz of audio bandwidth. (actually, most quality transceivers have a wider audio bandwidth than this which can be set +/-) and if you agree you are indeed, how can you argue that 5K bandwidth can carry a 56K data rate over a phone line--and NOT a hf rf signal???? That looks insane to me? It's a question of the characteristics of the RF path. Certainly there are some paths that will support the amplitude- and phase- stable requirements of the 56K modem - and some paths that won't. On top of that is the fact that most RF paths aren't full duplex. How fast is the 56K modem in half-duplex with transmit-receive switching? The modem is NOT using the whole 5K bandwidth--necessarily, there is compression into a narrower bandwidth which can and is generally software controlled--if necessary (the modems software is a LOT smarter than most give it credit for, especially in the case of the old "onboard processor" and "hardware logic" USRobotics external modems. You need to explain to me why it even begins to look difficult to you for me to be able to understand what you are asking? As, I have to be missing something here... You are. Do you think HF offers the same transmission characteristics as a telephone line? You know, I have not even looked to see on the web, but aren't tons of people doing this right now as we newsgroup? On telephone wires or HF radio? I suppose you could actually use the rf signal as data carrier itself and modulate it directly through on/off switching, as opposed to modulating the rf carrier with the audio data carrier... but that would take some heavy duty equip mods/revamps, if it didn't wipe out the neighbors cable tv! grin Think about this: at 100 mhz if you can precisely control the EXACT amplitude of each and every cycle of rf out the back end of the xmitter, you have a virtual 100mbs data carrier... most are working here... 450 MHz? 1Ghz? 12Ghz? Think about the stability of the RF path at HF. ... and of course, the receiver has to be able to decipher the amplitudes of each cycle back to a data stream for the video card... ... this is the land where dreamers are... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Mike: 300 baud is ridiculous, in Dee's first post mentioning 300 baud I tossed it out the window--that was fine up to about 1985, then only the mentally challenged continued to run 300 baud modems! Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
I could give a rats ass less if you, or anyone else likes my sentence
structure. I have found that when one criticizes structure and spelling, they have run out of arguments. As for you being a sham.....you just answered that. You come on here trying to act like you know something about a particular subject in Amateur Radio, and you make a complete fool of yourself. Then when someone tries to explain it to you, you proceed to make fun of that. Or ignore him/her totally. And no I don't have "examples" handy. And won't waste my time looking for any. You know that is how you are. And no Kim , I don't think my judgment of you is all that far off. And the majority of that is because of your choice of vanity callsigns. It brings shame on you and the Amateur Service. That is my opinion and if you don't like it. Tuff. Dan/W4NTI "Kim" wrote in message ... It was mostly, Dan, to highlight that mistakes--and ignorance--can and do happen in any circumstance. That I do not understand the technicality of most of amateur radio, is as much similar to the fact that you make common grammatical and spelling errors in a language you fluently speak. So, as abrasive as you are, surely you are human enough to recognize that your criticism, chagrin, hateful conduct, and judgment of me is pretty darned ridiculous. If you are not human enough, so be it. And, come to think of it, your sentence structure, below, should have been: "But, come to think of it, sham is appropriate for you, too." You may as well define what sham I am undertaking. Are you implying that I am not a licensed amateur radio operator? What "sham," Dan? Kim W5TIT "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... As soon as I hit the send key I realized the error. But come to think of it sham is appropriate for you too. Dan/W4NTI "Kim" wrote in message . .. "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 |
From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:18
Dee Flint wrote: Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE John has been challenged. His system for real time video via HF will be posted soon, TTPUOSU! No, John has NOT "been challenged." Real-time video that fits into the bandwidth of a SSB voice signal is available from Internet over 3 KHz bandwidth telco lines today, last year, the year before that, by the thousands. It is HERE. You or anyone can go down to the computer store in your town and buy the components, put them together yourself. [a few computers have had them built-in] Those work in a 3 KHz bandwidth. Hmmm...on "challenges." The Coslonaut said he would reach "the threshold of space" last year. He was going where ham radio had already gone before. So far he hasn't gone. Remember, when you gotta go, you GOTTA go. As to your "challenges," I invoke the Byte Brothers: FYDITM! bit bit |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Bwwwahaha! |
|
heh heh BIG HUGE GRIN
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... I could give a rats ass less if you, or anyone else likes my sentence structure. I have found that when one criticizes structure and spelling, they have run out of arguments. As for you being a sham.....you just answered that. You come on here trying to act like you know something about a particular subject in Amateur Radio, and you make a complete fool of yourself. Then when someone tries to explain it to you, you proceed to make fun of that. Or ignore him/her totally. And no I don't have "examples" handy. And won't waste my time looking for any. You know that is how you are. And no Kim , I don't think my judgment of you is all that far off. And the majority of that is because of your choice of vanity callsigns. It brings shame on you and the Amateur Service. That is my opinion and if you don't like it. Tuff. Dan/W4NTI |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:18:54 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dee Flint wrote: Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE John has been challenged. Correct. I'm afraid that John is - well - challenged. Somewhere, there is a bridge missing their troll! :) His system for real time video via HF will be posted soon, TTPUOSU! - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
wrote:
wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. "John" just convinced me that he knows very little about radio - HF amateur radio in particular. Took long enough, Jim! ;^) Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Bwwwahaha! Did you notice there was no mention of antennas? Isotrons. It would at least look kinda kewl. 8^) Poor soul prolly doesn't know what "QSK" means, either. Does it matter?....... - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no flight, no tests, no words. Glad you asked! "Things" are moving along well enough, much of the equipment has been chosen, yet needs to be integrated. Flight 1 will be tethered to shake down the payload, flight two will be a short, relatively low altitude flight. At flight 3, the payload form factor will be changed. Beyond that, the flights will build on the success or problems encountered during previous flights. That's all the words you get. There will be web pages devoted to the project. At that time you can read and ridicule, but you'll have to go to the website to get yer material. Why dontcha ask Len how that "Extra right out of the box" is coming along. How many years down the road has that been now? Dave K8MN |
Dee Flint wrote:
Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. The answer (in large part) is to use different modulation and encoding schemes. Such as QPSK instead of BFSK. Multiple carriers spaced just far enough apart to avoid interference. Simultaneous AM and PM. Of course such modes may not have the HF performance we're used to from, say, PSK31 or SSB. You don't get something for nothing; Shannon's Theorem shows that the increased data rate in a given bandwidth comes at the price of needing more S/N to get acceptable results. As K0HB points out, the 300 baud limit only applies in the CW/data subbands. If you can stuff "TV" into a reasonable bandwidth, it can be sent in the voice/image subbands. As a simple example, imagine 25 PSK31 carriers spaced cheek-by-jowl in a typical SSB bandwidth, running QPSK. If one gets you 100 baud, 25 will get you 2500 baud. Go to 8PSK and you get 5000 baud. Then add compression on top of that... How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Only if "all else is equal". The trick is to make the tradeoff somewhere else. The familiar "56K" modem trades off S/N rather than bandwidth. It's not a complex subject at all. You've probably heard the old engineering adage: "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Choose any two" All Shannon's Theorem does is equate fast to data rate, good to S/N, and cheap to bandwidth. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dave Heil wrote:
Why dontcha ask Len how that "Extra right out of the box" is coming along. How many years down the road has that been now? More than five and a half years ago - January 19, 2000, to be exact. But hey, Len didn't say *when* he was going to do it.... Neither did Mike, IIRC.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Dee Flint wrote: Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things, not just video, that would be nice to do. The answer (in large part) is to use different modulation and encoding schemes. Such as QPSK instead of BFSK. Multiple carriers spaced just far enough apart to avoid interference. Simultaneous AM and PM. Of course such modes may not have the HF performance we're used to from, say, PSK31 or SSB. You don't get something for nothing; Shannon's Theorem shows that the increased data rate in a given bandwidth comes at the price of needing more S/N to get acceptable results. That old s/n bugaboo. PSK31 does very well at low power levels in great part because the PA of present day transmitters work well at lower power levels. Crank 'em up to full power, and things aren't always so pretty. You can visually see the results on the waterfall, just as you can see when the drive level is too high. That's transmitter IMD - just one part of the problem. Now is that an insurmountable problem? No. But it means that we would probably have to design new transmitters that can put out a PSK-friendly output at high power levels. Which can be done and is being done. Another method is of course to increase the ERP. So we can put up a directional antenna. And an amplifier. But now we're certainly a long way from simple, and many present day rigs and users wouldn't be able to participate in the fun. But all that is doable. After all, Morse Code has a big S/N advantage over even SSB voice, yet hams manage to make SSB contacts on HF. Morse Code simply does better under marginal conditions. Or perhaps we should say that its margins are lower. I wonder if any experiments have been performed by Amateurs along these lines to find a practical limit to how many different phase angles can be accommodated. Sounds like fun. The problem is in two parts: First there's the accuracy of the hardware, which is probably pretty good using modern parts and methods. But second is the distortion of the RF path, which is not under our control. If, say, the ionosphere causes the phase to wander a couple of degrees each way, modes like BPSK and QPSK may still work, but "256PSK" will be full of errors. Note how there are times when PSK31, even if the signals are loud, won't work in QPSK mode but will work in BPSK mode. That's not because of narrower bandwidth or some hardware or software change. It's because the path is introducing so much phase distortion (a form of noise) that the distortion exceeds the QPSK demodulation criteria. W0EX observed path-induced phase distortion that was so high that PSK31 wouldn't work even in BPSK mode, yet the PSK31 carrier could be heard clearly and seen easily on the waterfall. As K0HB points out, the 300 baud limit only applies in the CW/data subbands. If you can stuff "TV" into a reasonable bandwidth, it can be sent in the voice/image subbands. As a simple example, imagine 25 PSK31 carriers spaced cheek-by-jowl in a typical SSB bandwidth, running QPSK. If one gets you 100 baud, 25 will get you 2500 baud. Go to 8PSK and you get 5000 baud. Then add compression on top of that... PSK31 is 31 baud, so the numbers have to be shifted a bit. Yes - I should have written "PSK31-like" The baud rate was chosen because it is around the level that a good typist can type at. But it can be changed PSK100 baud easily, just sacrifice a bit of bandwidth. Exactly. The principle is what matters. The problem is that the transmitter and receiver must be very linear to avoid IMD products causing trouble. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Only if "all else is equal". The trick is to make the tradeoff somewhere else. The familiar "56K" modem trades off S/N rather than bandwidth. It's not a complex subject at all. You've probably heard the old engineering adage: "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Choose any two" Same with light bulbs: Bright, long lasting, or cheap. I'd say "bright, long lasting, or efficient". All Shannon's Theorem does is equate fast to data rate, good to S/N, and cheap to bandwidth. There's also the factor of error rate. In the above simplified discussion I assumed the same error rate for all cases. Obviously there are some situations where a higher error rate is tolerable. Error-correction can help, but error correction carries its own overhead, slowing down data rate. A dramatic example of the effect of errors can be seen on TV. Conventional analog NTSC-type TV shows "errors" as "snow" and sometimes even loss of sync. But you can still watch a "snowy" picture. Digital TV methods often show errors as pixelation or complete loss - you see *nothing*. --- btw, the US military is investigating the use of near-space balloons for communications and intelligence-gathering applications..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
From: Mike Coslo on Tues 5 Jul 2005 22:44
wrote: Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no flight, no tests, no words. Glad you asked! "Things" are moving along well enough, much of the equipment has been chosen, yet needs to be integrated. Flight 1 will be tethered to shake down the payload, flight two will be a short, relatively low altitude flight. At flight 3, the payload form factor will be changed. Beyond that, the flights will build on the success or problems encountered during previous flights. That's all the words you get. So, "flight 1" hasn't gotten off the ground yet... Been almost a year since you started cheering for yourself in this newsgroup. There will be web pages devoted to the project. At that time you can read and ridicule, but you'll have to go to the website to get yer material. Nothing's happening yet, is it? Everything on the ground. Think of it this way: "Outer space" is only an hour's drive away...if your car can drive straight up, that is... Be sure and notify the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, National Geographic to be on the alert for the Latest News from Launch Control. Once you are out to launch, you might be out to lunch. Bone apetite. BTW, will you have "live streaming video" from das balloon? Keep the bandwidth down, senior, you can't interfere with others' communications, despite the glory and grandeur of this (not yet) accomplishment. "Up, up, and awwaaaayyyyyy!" Yawn. bit bit |
From: on Tues 5 Jul 2005 16:41
John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Did John say "on the same frequency?" I don't think so. FULL duplex IS possible using SEPARATE frequencies for transmit and receive. [note spelling of "receive"] Did that over 50 years ago on 9 terminals at 1.8 GHz. Full duplex. Twenty-four voice channels each terminal. No problem. Bwwwahaha! Tsk. Started "happy hour" early, did you? :-) bit bit |
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: Another method is of course to increase the ERP. So we can put up a directional antenna. And an amplifier. Better be a skweeky clean one! But now we're certainly a long way from simple, and many present day rigs and users wouldn't be able to participate in the fun. But all that is doable. After all, Morse Code has a big S/N advantage over even SSB voice, yet hams manage to make SSB contacts on HF. Morse Code simply does better under marginal conditions. Or perhaps we should say that its margins are lower. I wonder if any experiments have been performed by Amateurs along these lines to find a practical limit to how many different phase angles can be accommodated. Sounds like fun. The problem is in two parts: First there's the accuracy of the hardware, which is probably pretty good using modern parts and methods. But second is the distortion of the RF path, which is not under our control. If, say, the ionosphere causes the phase to wander a couple of degrees each way, modes like BPSK and QPSK may still work, but "256PSK" will be full of errors. Note how there are times when PSK31, even if the signals are loud, won't work in QPSK mode but will work in BPSK mode. That's not because of narrower bandwidth or some hardware or software change. It's because the path is introducing so much phase distortion (a form of noise) that the distortion exceeds the QPSK demodulation criteria. W0EX observed path-induced phase distortion that was so high that PSK31 wouldn't work even in BPSK mode, yet the PSK31 carrier could be heard clearly and seen easily on the waterfall. As K0HB points out, the 300 baud limit only applies in the CW/data subbands. If you can stuff "TV" into a reasonable bandwidth, it can be sent in the voice/image subbands. However, receiving it may be another matter... The baud rate was chosen because it is around the level that a good typist can type at. But it can be changed PSK100 baud easily, just sacrifice a bit of bandwidth. Exactly. The principle is what matters. The problem is that the transmitter and receiver must be very linear to avoid IMD products causing trouble. How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate. Only if "all else is equal". The trick is to make the tradeoff somewhere else. The familiar "56K" modem trades off S/N rather than bandwidth. It's not a complex subject at all. You've probably heard the old engineering adage: "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Choose any two" Same with light bulbs: Bright, long lasting, or cheap. I'd say "bright, long lasting, or efficient". Maybe, but you ought to see people choke when I tell them what their replacement bulb in a data projector is! Bright, long lasting and .5 kilobucks. pick out two... All Shannon's Theorem does is equate fast to data rate, good to S/N, and cheap to bandwidth. There's also the factor of error rate. In the above simplified discussion I assumed the same error rate for all cases. Obviously there are some situations where a higher error rate is tolerable. Error-correction can help, but error correction carries its own overhead, slowing down data rate. That it will. PSK *is* a delicate mode, and gets more delicate the more phase shifts in use. It's only delicate to certain kinds of disturbance. PSK has been the mode of choice for deep space communications for over 40 years because of its performance in a Gausssian-noise environment. Interestingly enough, it works pretty well at frequencies where there is more bandwidth available Don't forget that filters can cause phase distortion! A dramatic example of the effect of errors can be seen on TV. Conventional analog NTSC-type TV shows "errors" as "snow" and sometimes even loss of sync. But you can still watch a "snowy" picture. Digital TV methods often show errors as pixelation or complete loss - you see *nothing*. That brings up a useful analogy. When I got started in video, the portable work was being done with the old 3/4 inch U-Matic tapes. As time progressed, we shifted to formats like Betacam, S-VHS and the like. Eventually some interesting formats such as Hi-8 came out. The Hi-8 had a pretty decent video quality to it, and looked like it was going to revolutionize things. But there was a problem. I'm sure you are familiar with the way that modern video lays the tracks down on the tape - the record heads are at an angle, and there are at least two of them. Helical scan. Goes back at least 45 years... This way the tape is "striped", with the video laid on at an angle to provide more linear space with which to write the image. This was videotaping's bandwidth "cheat". And it works fairly well. What it does is to increase the effective tape speed. But the needed bandwidth didn't go away, and there was tremendous demand to make the tape smaller and more slender. So the fix was to lay the heads at an even greater angle, so as to compensate for the smaller tape. What may have been a 70 degree angle for the 3/4 inch tape might be 45 degrees for 1/2 inch tapes, and perhaps 22 degrees for the 8mm tapes. (note: approximate angles) A dropout - a fairly common thing - on U-Matic would just make a little white dot on the screen. On the 1/2 inch tapes, an entire line might be lost. On th 8mm tapes the entire signal might go away for a little bit. This is because that missing oxide will be cutting across a lot more of those stripes on the tape as it got smaller. At the same time, the tape media has improved, as have the heads and transports. But HF is still HF. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: From: on Tues 5 Jul 2005 16:41 John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Did John say "on the same frequency?" I don't think so. He didn't say *not* on the same frequency either Sweetums. Now what? FULL duplex IS possible using SEPARATE frequencies for transmit and receive. No kidding Sweetums I've done it several times myself. With my own equipment operated under my own operators and station license. But in your case of course . . sigh |
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no flight, no tests, no words. Glad you asked! "Things" are moving along well enough, much of the equipment has been chosen, yet needs to be integrated. Flight 1 will be tethered to shake down the payload, flight two will be a short, relatively low altitude flight. At flight 3, the payload form factor will be changed. Beyond that, the flights will build on the success or problems encountered during previous flights. That's all the words you get. There will be web pages devoted to the project. At that time you can read and ridicule, but you'll have to go to the website to get yer material. Why dontcha ask Len how that "Extra right out of the box" is coming along. How many years down the road has that been now? No point to it. Not sure why he is so anxious for us to launch something. I don't recall setting any particular deadline. No biggie. - Mike KB3EIA - |
wrote in message ups.com... You've probably heard the old engineering adage: "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Choose any two" All Shannon's Theorem does is equate fast to data rate, good to S/N, and cheap to bandwidth. BINGO! That's exactly the problem. What is Jim going to give up to get it? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no flight, no tests, no words. Glad you asked! "Things" are moving along well enough, much of the equipment has been chosen, yet needs to be integrated. Flight 1 will be tethered to shake down the payload, flight two will be a short, relatively low altitude flight. At flight 3, the payload form factor will be changed. Beyond that, the flights will build on the success or problems encountered during previous flights. That's all the words you get. There will be web pages devoted to the project. At that time you can read and ridicule, but you'll have to go to the website to get yer material. Why dontcha ask Len how that "Extra right out of the box" is coming along. How many years down the road has that been now? No point to it. Not sure why he is so anxious for us to launch something. I don't recall setting any particular deadline. No biggie. Surely you know that Len is the very opposite of being anxious for you to launch. If you had a sucessful launch, it'd take away his ammunition. Dave K8MN |
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... You've probably heard the old engineering adage: "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Choose any two" All Shannon's Theorem does is equate fast to data rate, good to S/N, and cheap to bandwidth. BINGO! That's exactly the problem. What is Jim going to give up to get it? And my, have we come a long way from simply hooking up a modem To our rig haven't we? Lessee, Split operation, perhaps 2 modems? Lotsa power, very high quality transmitter and PA, as well as a great soundcard. A marked sensitivity to phase distortion. At HF, it would be a very expensive system that would work on a good day maybe. And it is a superior thing? Makes BPL look like a masterpiece! - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: on Wed 6 Jul 2005 15:54
wrote: From: on Tues 5 Jul 2005 16:41 John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Did John say "on the same frequency?" I don't think so. He didn't say *not* on the same frequency either Sweetums. Now what? Two questions: 1. What ELSE did John "*not* say?" 2. What are you going to say he "really said?" :-) This is all very clever of you, but it really boils down to YOU saying a lot of snit (that another didn't say) and then trying to tap-dance around admitting you fudged things up. Next time just accept being caught and hang up. Do NOT try to MAKE UP STORIES to try and snow-job everybody. It doesn't work and it annoys the other pigs. FULL duplex IS possible using SEPARATE frequencies for transmit and receive. No kidding Sweetums I've done it several times myself. With my own equipment operated under my own operators and station license. Mostly I think you "did it" with only your own computer and more literary license than you ever earned. :-) But, that's just my opinion...and with some considerable thinking about HF operations that hardly EVER go FULL duplex, senior. For one thing, the rather large near field at HF wavelengths mean you NEED considerable separation of antennas or the most bodaciously-many-section-dual-filter to keep the unwanted frequencies (transmitter leaking into receiver) OUT. That attenuation has to be VERY large in order to keep the receiver input from overloading. Now, WHY would you want to go FULL duplex "operating under any license?" for personal use? You would need someone at the other end of the circuit doing the same thing...and that is an almost- extreme rarity. Telephone Cell sites operate 24/7 at FULL duplex. They HAVE to and the equipment is designed to do that...such as separate transmitting and receiving bands with plenty of diplexing filter connecting the transmitter(s) and receiver(s). The General Electric microwave terminals I've described used a (approximately) 5-foot long dual waveguide bandpass filter to keep separate transmit and receive frequencies from interfering with one another. The pulse-position-modulation pulse trains were not synchronous with one another, thus aiding in isolation. The peak power output of the transmitter was only 12 Watts (at base of antenna tower) yet the receiver was about as sensitive as one could get (using radar receiver techniques) of the 1950s. If you are going to mumble about "your own moonbounce" (what is mistakenly called "EME" by hams), then you need not worry about mutual interference. A return signal won't return from the moon for about 2.5 seconds, long enough for you to manually swtich coax or waveguide between transmit and receive (as one of the early ham moonbouncers did and pictured in CQ long ago). Or, you could go into broadband BS about using morse and auto- switchover Tx/Rx by fancy diode T/R switching...so much so that you could "read the other station between dots and dashes" like your buddie Jimmie once said in here. :-) But in your case of course . . sigh In "my case" you are resentful/insulted/irritated because another had LONG AGO experience in something YOU DID NOT. shrug I've come to expect that in here from the self-propelled wunderkinder of the PCTA extra crowd. It's practically a given. :-) |
wrote:
From: on Wed 6 Jul 2005 15:54 wrote: From: on Tues 5 Jul 2005 16:41 John Smith wrote: N2EY: First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate transmitter and receiver. Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits. On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it! Did John say "on the same frequency?" I don't think so. He didn't say *not* on the same frequency either Sweetums. Now what? Two questions: 1. What ELSE did John "*not* say?" John said it was easy. The way it is turning out is anything but. We were going to attach our 56K modem to our rig, IIRC. One quick connection, and welcome to the modern digital world for the olde tyme hammes. DAT's okay, those Olde tymers would probably just use it to send Morse code sounds anyhow. ;^) 2. What are you going to say he "really said?" :-) We thought we would let that part up to you. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: No point to it. Not sure why he is so anxious for us to launch something. I don't recall setting any particular deadline. No biggie. Surely you know that Len is the very opposite of being anxious for you to launch. If you had a sucessful launch, it'd take away his ammunition. I doubt that, Dave. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com