Mike:

"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which,
it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you
can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio
shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.")

The technology is on the shelf, so I take it your real question is,
"How come no one has asked/petitioned the FCC to use a "real" video
mode on amateur radio yet?"

And, if so, if that is your question, I fail to come up with a good
answer--but like I stated earlier, listen to some of the data streams
you hear on VHF/UHF/SHF--those sound faster than 300 baud modems,
don't you think?

Or, maybe it is just my imagination? Gee, I never thought of it, you
don't suppose a some of those are freebanders, do you? grin

You do know we are all going to digital TV soon, don't you? I mean
digital broadcast TV, surely by then the hams will take the hint,
don't you think?

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
RST Engineering wrote:
Did anybody else catch the scatalogical implications of the
mis-spelling?

But I'm waiting to catch any technological solution to the digital
image transmission problem at hand.

I read much invective.

I read very little that is tangible.

Not even how modern video compression techniques could be applied to
Amateur TV. *That* is one area in which some advances could be made.

But it looks like invective is what we have to settle for.


- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which,
it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you
can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio
shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.")


Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask
for no more.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Isn't it quite obvious the best method would be the pci shortwave card
to receive and feed the signal to a software decoder based in the same
computer as the card and feeding the decoded video signal to the video
card of the computer for viewing on the monitor? (I have the sw card
and am toying with it in my spare time but have a lot on the plate
right now, and I am addicted to news groups, instant messaging, irc
and webcams grin)

And, a transmitter feeding from an digital output from a software
modem running on the computer via the sound card to transmit the
digitized video?

And, the second best method would be to kludge together an external
modem to feed the mic input on a transmitter from a software encoder
running on the computer, to broadcast digitized video.

And, on the receiving end, the same or a similar modem being feed from
a digital output from the transceiver (dac/adc converter installed
between transceiver and computer--or implemented as software using the
sound card) to a software decoder running on the computer and feeding
the computers video card.

I mean there are several roads which all lead to the same end here.
Plus, a person in the industry with access to the parts and facilities
should be able to put together a dedicated device...

The one I see in practical use, uses the "kludged modem" dac/adc
conversion, it functions well, in well I mean is much superior to
SSTV--indeed, it is still in use to this day 15 frames per second of
BW video is normal with good signal strength...

I am not a "real hardware person" (my degree in that field is from
1972 and makes me a bit of a "hardware dinosaur" frown), I am a
hacker (but am able to fool my boss well enough to call me a Sr.
Software Engineer in assembly/C++ grin) all I did was write the code
to interface the modems/sound cards with the kludged hardware, I can
tell you about the data compaction and rs-232 communications between
the serial port-computer-modem and the decoding of the digital signal
from the sound card back to a video signal to feed to the computers
video card/monitor...

To put it simply, the way the kludge works is that the "phone line"
between the two modems (one on a receiver to grab the "digital video
signal" from an output on that receiver, and one on the transmitter to
feed the video signal) is just like they work on a phone line, only
you have replaced the phone line with a digital modulated audio signal
modulating the rf signal...

The guy who built the adc (analog to digital converter) and dac
(digital to analog converter) says there is a better way to do this
via the sound card its digital in/out ports and the transceivers--and
ditch the hardware modems all together--we worked on this and have it
at "proof of concept" stage, however we never get the time to get back
together and realize it as fully functional...

To be honest with you, during my whole lifetime I have built a few
basic receivers/transmitters and many, many linears and antennas--that
is about the extent of my hardware experience. I have been gifted to
have family members and friends who have a much greater interest in
hardware.

Let me be frank on this one point. I would be slow to put you in
contact with any of the young men here running this equip.--they are
trusting and would be easy to take advantage of and get into trouble.
These amateur news groups have demonstrated the true petty nature of
hams and how turning a person in for minor infractions of rules and
regulations really gets the old women fired up here and calling for
blood! I have been burned by petty hams in the past!

Certainly here there are hardware gurus who can explain all this much
better than my capabilities... where are the hams who are using this
technology in the "real world?"

I can't believe a "hardware type" hasn't already chimed in here and is
already offering block diagrams and schematics on how to build one!
Have you insulted all those away?

Surely after this post of mine they will chime in...

Even if you are not a programmer, I think there is probably a way to
make windows media player decode/encode the video to a protocol like
..asf (broadcast media which is already broadcast over the internet via
dialup modems at low fps) or such which would be acceptable to
broadcast video over the bandwidths in question at acceptable fps
(frames per second)... surely there are enough skilled people here to
put together a workable project, aren't there?

Don't be afraid to speak up hardware techies!!! Or, is Len right, you
have slaughtered all the "digital youngsters" with your large dinosaur
egos?

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Len:

The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are
enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this
thread is rather drab and boring...

John, do you have a technical dissertation on digital transmission
of imagery on HF? Not how it can be done, of course. That is a
given. But how it can be done practically, as in a reasonable amount
of time.

I agree that Len is quick witted. It keeps me reading his posts.

- Ciao - Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

No. I don't think you understand anything. But, I think I read you
loud and clear. You want to pretend everyone is making fun of poor
old ancient hams and they don't deserve it. Get real, they need it
alright, they need to wake up.

Get real and quit asking stupid questions. Video broadcasts over the
internet are going on all the time--and are of much better quality
than SSTV.

Now, all you have to do is replace your phone line with a rf signal
and you have the same thing between two stations. Not only should a
child realize this is possible, but anyone arguing different should be
given a three day mental examination.

No. I know your game far too well mike, you are sneaky and
underhanded. You seek to manipulate the less technical savvy into
thinking simple things are impossible just because they are NOT
happening on ham radio.

The truth is your abusive nature of cheap tricks and manipulative
spews of textual attacks have turned off the technically savvy, the
youngsters who think in digital signals and they aren't here... we are
left with a bunch of ancient know-it-all-hams who can't hit their
butts with both hands, huh?

No. Truth is you are reaping just what you have sown, you have
resisted change and chased off all the younger minds who would bring
change with them, then you sent and tap on ancient brass keys
(probably vibroflexs from the 70's in reality) and convince yourselves
you are doing a "service", you are doing a service alright, it is
called a "snow job!"

Shame on all your silly butts, and you have only yourselves to blame!

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Len:

The words and wit which flow from your rather quick mind are
enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable, if not for you, this
thread is rather drab and boring...

John, do you have a technical dissertation on digital transmission
of imagery on HF? Not how it can be done, of course. That is a
given. But how it can be done practically, as in a reasonable amount
of time.

I agree that Len is quick witted. It keeps me reading his posts.

- Ciao - Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Mike:

"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which,
it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you
can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio
shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.")



Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask
for no more.

It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made
some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing.
For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is
simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mike:

"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology
which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented
yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e,
their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.")




Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I
ask for no more.


It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made
some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing.
For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is
simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards.

Dave K8MN


Interesting and true, Dave.
But do you really waste your time reading Lennie's posts?
The oldster is a Troll and hardly worth responding to.

Dave:

I find it quite obvious there is no real amateur tv, what you have is
what has been stolen from others... let's just make sure in the end
the rightful experimenters and developers get credit...

.... webcams have just been discovered by hams! EXTRA! EXTRA! Hams
discover old technology, get your copy here! ROFLOL

live video feeds on vhf have been in use by the police cars in my city
for over two years now... and those guys are always behind everyone
else!

wireless wans have been sending video from webcams between points for
longer... get real guys... like rip van winkle you are just waking up
to the future... ROFLOL

.... hey, what is amateur radio good for anyway, old men to pass gas
and rant at each other... ain't it about time you start earning your
keep?

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
link.net...
Mike Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Mike:

"Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology
which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not
implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private
hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few
"dinosaur hams.")



Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from.
I ask for no more.

It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len
made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same
thing.
For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is
simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards.

Dave K8MN

From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:10

Most of us prefer to use Webster as opposed to that monument of ignorance
called Wikopedia. In the United States version of English, a dike is used
to hold back water. A dyke is a slang term for lesbian.

Ahem...dragging down my old "Websters" [Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, Merriam-Webster 1961], I looked under "dyke." All
it has there for a definition is "variation of 'dike.'"

Sorry, sir, your lack of both education and street smarts shows.

Well, that's how it goes...:-)

By the way, I've always had two pairs of "dikes/dykes" in my
toolbox since around 1947. Formally those are called "wire
cutters." However, I've not yet encountered anyone in an
electronics lab anywhere that did NOT know what the pronounced
familiar name was... :-)

Oh, yeah, long ago I learned that a threaded-rod fastener
was called a "screw." And its receptacle was a "nut."
In a United States high school physics class I learned that
a "screw" was one of the Basic Machines!

Ooooo...lots of jollies with words! :-)

From: "RST Engineering" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 17:12

Not only fired it up, but passed it along to every student every semester
from then to now. Sorry, I thought I emailed you back that I thought it was
really a great thing.

Okay, good on that. Just remember the author. :-)

By the way, LCie4's redeeming feature is the ability to change
any single L or C value at will to see the difference it makes
on filter response...and also to do a Monte Carlo Sensitivity
check with L and C tolerance limits. That will become clear
when anyone builds a filter from the program data.

Sorry it isn't nice and GUI-ey for Windows but that's how it
goes with us lazy technical types. :-)

From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Sat 2 Jul 2005 21:52

Poor Lennie the loser, being such a historian on military and all, just
can't get that E5 Chevron arrangement right yet.

What I described for U.S. Army NCO sleeve insignia was perfectly
correct for the U.S. Army of the 1950s. The E-5 sleeve insignia
was equivalent to a Staff Sergeant of WW2 times and "Staff Sergeant"
came back some time after 1956 and remains. Since I wore that
insignia, was entitled to it, and had my pictures taken (by
different Signal Corps photographers and reviewed by Army PR
folks, that is just how it was then. There was NO "buck
sergeant" (three stripes, no rockers) in the Army at that time.

Note: This has NOTHING to do with amateur radio policy except
that one PCTA extra is so damn ****ed up in his mind he has to
make an issue of "military minutae." Too much Billy Beer on a
Saturday night will do that to a moron...


All this radio experience is as a what ? Operator? Gee Lennie, how hard is
it to push the button and yap into a mic? Or maybe it was you were a fixer
eh? I've seen the Army Tech Manuals, What was your echolon me boy?
Field perhaps? Not even allowed to change a component, other than a tube.
Hope your TV-7/U tester was in top notch shape.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already stated in here. If you
wish to see what was done, go to:

http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment/

and click on any blue link under "Stations" heading. Each is about
10 MB
in size, PDF.

In FIXED STATION operations and maintenance, a "tube tester" is
seldom used. One depends on the meter readings and tuning
response during QSYs (frequent for long-haul HF circuits) in
addition to the TM's statements on what should be within range.
For the GE microwave radio relay terminals (having 360+ tubes
per terminal), test point probing with a Tektronix oscilloscope
(511AD model) would reveal whether or not a particular tube
stage was beginning to misbehave. The General Electric terminals
were commercial units and we all used the commercial manuals (you
can see one I am holding in the referenced link). The Western
Electric LD-T2 HF 4 KW PEP SSB was also a commercial model and
all used the WE commercial manuals for it; five of those at
station ADA by 1956. The Press Wireless PW-15 (15 KW CW on HF)
was also commercial. The 40 KW Linear Amplifiers were labeled
as AN/FRT-22 but were Collins Radio commercial transmitters
capable of 50 KW CW HF output. Like the microwave terminals,
a metal nameplate said they were "military" but, other than that,
they were identical to the commercial model. The rest of the
transmitters were standard "AN" types, a pre-WW2 design, as
were the FSK exciters for all the RTTY RF sources for single-
channel RTTY circuits. The VHF/UHF radio relay sets used at the
old site of ADA at Tsukishima used receiving type tubes (except
for the finals, an 829B, in the AN/TRC-1s) but a "tube tester"
wasn't used for any maintenance...they were simply left ON
all the time as "hot backups" in case the old site's cable
input failed.

As to "echelon" of maintenance, any FIXED COMMUNICATIONS site
is about as close to "depot" level as any can get. When the
mission is to operate 24/7, one fixes malfunctions when they
occur. NOW. That was very seldom. Fixed station equipment
is designed and built for continuous operation...and it worked
that way. At the Camp Owada receiving site it was the same,
R-388 and R-390 receivers (Collins Radio) with assorted
multicouplers and SSB demodulators, all working around the clock.
The torn-tape TTY relay was 220 (approximately) Teletype Corp.
machines, olive-drab or black painted versions of civilian
Teletype machines. All at 60 WPM equivalent rate. Not one
single manual telegraph key used anywhere at station ADA in the
1950s...not even in other-unit message centers. The small
MARS station was NOT a part of my Signal Battalion and their
only choice for transmitting (third priority) on long-haul HF
was through a TTY circuit to transmitters and one from
receivers.

For operations as Provisional Infantry (should the need arise)
we had the AN/PRC-6 handie-talkie (single frequency low-VHF FM
push-to-talk) and the AN/PRC-10 walkie-talkie (variable
frequency low-VHF FM voice, with internal crystal calibrator,
frequency range compatible with PRC-6); push-to-talk H-33
handset. Everything was workable on the march, nobody sat
down in the shade and tapped out morse code to communicate.
The four-knob AN/PRC-25 (also push-to-talk FM voice) of early
Vietnam War era was yet to be designed and built in 1956.

Does the MOS 31V mean anything to you ?

Nothing at all...and that extends to the U.S. Army.

In checking out MOSs at www.goarmy.com and looking under
"jobs," there aren't any Thirty-One-Victors listed. To make
certain,
I went to the Fort Gordon site and searched under the MOS Signal
School classes. There were other Thirty-Ones listed by none for
Victor suffix. Fort Gordon, GA, is the Signal Center, and the
controlling base for all Army communications/computer classes.

If a Thirty-One-Victor was your MOS, consider your job skills as
DEFUNCT. The Vietnam War ended 30 years ago. Best to adjust for
it. The Army has gone on with the soldiering task and uses new
style equipment*...unlike so many of the amateur extras content
with remaining fixed in several-decades old standards and
practices. Defunct. Gone. Went bye-bye. So long...to 31V.

This Sunday morning I hope you are not too hung over after all
that drinking. I hope you didn't puke on your Kode Klucks Klan
sheet even though it still smells bad. Take two aspirin and
go play with your code key.



* Standard small-unit land forces radio is the SINCGARS family
(30-88 MHz, voice or data, in-clear or encrypted, single-
channel frequency or frequency-hopping). Manpack unit is
AN/PRC-119; several variants for power output using same R/T
for vehicular use plus an airborne model. For HF voice or data
there is the AN/PRC-104 manpack (includes automatic whip antenna
tuner) with any frequency selectable through internal frequency
synthesizer. Vehicular variations of same R/T with power amps
up to 400 W PEP. The first of the SINCGARS became operational
in 1989, the PRC-104 family about 1986. The PRC-119 has
undergone the SIP or SINCGARS Improvement Plan at ITT Fort
Wayne, IN, resulting in a halving of weight and size. The PRC-104
is coming to a close of its life soon but there are several
candidate sets under evaluation to take its place. Both have
been "tested in battle" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the
various parts of old Yugoslavia..