Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
LenAnderson@ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.org 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.

Of course! But it all depends what you consider "acceptable quality"...

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.

OTOH, if all you want is B&W ~CGA video....

There are limits, and there are limits. How much more are we
going to throw away?

Always a tradeoff. Hams routinely use 1.8 kHz wide SSB filters for
"communications quality". Hardly hi-fi but it can make the difference
between QSO and QRJ.

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?

Use modes designed for the purpose. See below.

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?

No mode always gets through.

But if you have enough S/N, all sorts of things are possible.

Here's one way. I apologize if you are way beyond this simplified
example:

Consider how PSK31 works in BPSK mode. There are just two basic
modulation states - 0 degrees and 180 degrees. One bit per unit time.

But in QPSK mode, there are four basic modulation states - 0 degrees,
90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees. Two bits per unit time, but
the bandwidth is no greater than with BPSK. Only problem is that you
need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the four states
apart.

Now consider a theoretical "256PSK" mode, in which there are 256
states: 0 degrees, 360/256 degree, 720/256 degrees, etc., all the way
to ~359 degrees. 8 bits in one unit time, in the same bandwidth! But
you need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the 256 states
apart.

You can see that if we just keep increasing the number of states, the
number of bits per unit time in the same bandwidth keeps going up. But
you need more and more accurate modulator/medium/demodulator - IOW,
better and better signal-to-noise. Or to look at it another way, the
mode carries huge amounts of data in a tiny bandwidth but has very
little tolerance for noise that takes the form of phase distortion.

Now imagine multiple spaced carriers in the 2.5 kHz bandwidth all
carrying data - lotta bits, huh?

Of course you may find that in practice it's not that easy to get a
modulator/medium/demodulator setup that meets the requirements -
particularly if the medium is HF RF with relatively low power.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

I really didn't think it was all that simple.

Nobody said it was 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?

Ask the PROFESSIONALS, Mike. Remember, ham radio is a HOBBY, according
to them....

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.....

Exactly.

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'.

Discussion is not what the invective-hurlers want, Mike.

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.

You see that happening right here.

I'll bet they like some of the "wonder antennas" that keep cropping up...

Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

binary data is two state data from its very state of being, on or off

normalize your noise level (to a value which will always be subtracted
from the "on markers") then there is only two states in question, an
on and an off

next, you are NOT actually transmitting ones and zeros (on's and
off's), but are transmitting "markers", the length (time)between the
"markers" is what determines if it a one or a zero (or a sting of two
or more ones or zeros, under proper compression techniques.)

If those markers are above the noise level--you have uncorrupted
data--if not, you do have corrupted data, since data is transmitted in
"packets", and since each and every (say in this case) 1024 bit packet
is checked against a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check "value"), corrupted
packets are tossed away and a request to resend is initiated. Packets
are sequentially numbered so as to keep their display sequence in
proper sync.

My experience is that most digital transmissions can take place with
acceptable success if cw can... and I expect that statement to fall to
heavy challenge! smirk

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
LenAnderson@ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.org
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.

Of course! But it all depends what you consider "acceptable
quality"...

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.

OTOH, if all you want is B&W ~CGA video....

There are limits, and there are limits. How much more are we
going to throw away?

Always a tradeoff. Hams routinely use 1.8 kHz wide SSB filters for
"communications quality". Hardly hi-fi but it can make the
difference
between QSO and QRJ.

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?

Use modes designed for the purpose. See below.

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?

No mode always gets through.

But if you have enough S/N, all sorts of things are possible.

Here's one way. I apologize if you are way beyond this simplified
example:

Consider how PSK31 works in BPSK mode. There are just two basic
modulation states - 0 degrees and 180 degrees. One bit per unit
time.

But in QPSK mode, there are four basic modulation states - 0
degrees,
90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees. Two bits per unit time, but
the bandwidth is no greater than with BPSK. Only problem is that you
need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the four
states
apart.

Now consider a theoretical "256PSK" mode, in which there are 256
states: 0 degrees, 360/256 degree, 720/256 degrees, etc., all the
way
to ~359 degrees. 8 bits in one unit time, in the same bandwidth! But
you need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the 256 states
apart.

You can see that if we just keep increasing the number of states,
the
number of bits per unit time in the same bandwidth keeps going up.
But
you need more and more accurate modulator/medium/demodulator - IOW,
better and better signal-to-noise. Or to look at it another way, the
mode carries huge amounts of data in a tiny bandwidth but has very
little tolerance for noise that takes the form of phase distortion.

Now imagine multiple spaced carriers in the 2.5 kHz bandwidth all
carrying data - lotta bits, huh?

Of course you may find that in practice it's not that easy to get a
modulator/medium/demodulator setup that meets the requirements -
particularly if the medium is HF RF with relatively low power.

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.

And software.

I really didn't think it was all that simple.

Nobody said it was 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?

Ask the PROFESSIONALS, Mike. Remember, ham radio is a HOBBY,
according
to them....

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.....

Exactly.

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'.

Discussion is not what the invective-hurlers want, Mike.

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.

You see that happening right here.

I'll bet they like some of the "wonder antennas" that keep cropping
up...

Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
LenAnderson@ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.org 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.


Of course! But it all depends what you consider "acceptable quality"...

I'm assuming it has to be better than a very high quality SSTV image in
the case of stills, and present day OTA video signals....


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.


OTOH, if all you want is B&W ~CGA video....

Comes pre-aliased! ;^)


There are limits, and there are limits. How much more are we
going to throw away?


Always a tradeoff. Hams routinely use 1.8 kHz wide SSB filters for
"communications quality". Hardly hi-fi but it can make the difference
between QSO and QRJ.


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?

Use modes designed for the purpose. See below.

And a high enough frequency to handle the BW requirements.



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?


No mode always gets through.

But if you have enough S/N, all sorts of things are possible.

Remember though that we are talking about our favorite playground - HF.
A high S/N is not often the case here.


Here's one way. I apologize if you are way beyond this simplified
example:

Consider how PSK31 works in BPSK mode. There are just two basic
modulation states - 0 degrees and 180 degrees. One bit per unit time.

But in QPSK mode, there are four basic modulation states - 0 degrees,
90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees. Two bits per unit time, but
the bandwidth is no greater than with BPSK. Only problem is that you
need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the four states
apart.

Now consider a theoretical "256PSK" mode, in which there are 256
states: 0 degrees, 360/256 degree, 720/256 degrees, etc., all the way
to ~359 degrees. 8 bits in one unit time, in the same bandwidth! But
you need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the 256 states
apart.

The error rate would be fantastic!

You can see that if we just keep increasing the number of states, the
number of bits per unit time in the same bandwidth keeps going up. But
you need more and more accurate modulator/medium/demodulator - IOW,
better and better signal-to-noise. Or to look at it another way, the
mode carries huge amounts of data in a tiny bandwidth but has very
little tolerance for noise that takes the form of phase distortion.

Now for this system to be practical, there would have to be a way to
correct for all that phase distortion

Now imagine multiple spaced carriers in the 2.5 kHz bandwidth all
carrying data - lotta bits, huh?

Now yer cheatin! ;^) That is increased bandwidth


Of course you may find that in practice it's not that easy to get a
modulator/medium/demodulator setup that meets the requirements -
particularly if the medium is HF RF with relatively low power.

I have to imagine that there must be a lot of power, despite the
sensitivity being to phase distortion. When I look at my phase display,
there is a lot of noise showing up that can become bogus phase noise.


Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.


And software.

I really didn't think it was all that simple.


Nobody said it was simple!

Mr. Smith did!

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?


Ask the PROFESSIONALS, Mike. Remember, ham radio is a HOBBY, according
to them....

SNORT!


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.....


Exactly.

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'.


Discussion is not what the invective-hurlers want, Mike.

You're right. Your multi-angle psk is the closest thing to possibility
that I have seen yet. For Satellites and other UHF applications, it
starts to become possible/practical:

http://www.tech-faq.com/qpsk.shtml

They also write about 8psk. Note that link degradation is an issue.


Here on HF, we just don't have the proper conditions. I can do
quadrature mode, but almost no one does. I've done some QSO's using
BPSK63, but of course that uses more BW.

But imagine! Someone (you) writing about something with a real
possibility, not just calling me stupid or ignorant, etc!!!!

Sunnavagun (with apologies to Hans)
BTW, 20 meters is going to town tonight!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

The clock in a ~4GHz computer and DDR memory makes modem data xfr look
incredibly s-l-o-w.... with spaces miles long between marker bits...

100Mbs nic cards are not even close to a challenge to that clock
speed...

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
LenAnderson@ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.org
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.


Of course! But it all depends what you consider "acceptable
quality"...

I'm assuming it has to be better than a very high quality SSTV image
in the case of stills, and present day OTA video signals....


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.


OTOH, if all you want is B&W ~CGA video....

Comes pre-aliased! ;^)


There are limits, and there are limits. How much more are we
going to throw away?


Always a tradeoff. Hams routinely use 1.8 kHz wide SSB filters for
"communications quality". Hardly hi-fi but it can make the
difference
between QSO and QRJ.


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?

Use modes designed for the purpose. See below.

And a high enough frequency to handle the BW requirements.



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?


No mode always gets through.

But if you have enough S/N, all sorts of things are possible.

Remember though that we are talking about our favorite playground -
HF. A high S/N is not often the case here.


Here's one way. I apologize if you are way beyond this simplified
example:

Consider how PSK31 works in BPSK mode. There are just two basic
modulation states - 0 degrees and 180 degrees. One bit per unit
time.

But in QPSK mode, there are four basic modulation states - 0
degrees,
90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees. Two bits per unit time,
but
the bandwidth is no greater than with BPSK. Only problem is that
you
need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the four
states
apart.

Now consider a theoretical "256PSK" mode, in which there are 256
states: 0 degrees, 360/256 degree, 720/256 degrees, etc., all the
way
to ~359 degrees. 8 bits in one unit time, in the same bandwidth!
But
you need a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium whose
total
distortion is low enough that you can accurately tell the 256
states
apart.

The error rate would be fantastic!

You can see that if we just keep increasing the number of states,
the
number of bits per unit time in the same bandwidth keeps going up.
But
you need more and more accurate modulator/medium/demodulator - IOW,
better and better signal-to-noise. Or to look at it another way,
the
mode carries huge amounts of data in a tiny bandwidth but has very
little tolerance for noise that takes the form of phase distortion.

Now for this system to be practical, there would have to be a way to
correct for all that phase distortion

Now imagine multiple spaced carriers in the 2.5 kHz bandwidth all
carrying data - lotta bits, huh?

Now yer cheatin! ;^) That is increased bandwidth


Of course you may find that in practice it's not that easy to get a
modulator/medium/demodulator setup that meets the requirements -
particularly if the medium is HF RF with relatively low power.

I have to imagine that there must be a lot of power, despite the
sensitivity being to phase distortion. When I look at my phase
display, there is a lot of noise showing up that can become bogus
phase noise.


Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the
proper interfaces.


And software.

I really didn't think it was all that simple.


Nobody said it was simple!

Mr. Smith did!

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?


Ask the PROFESSIONALS, Mike. Remember, ham radio is a HOBBY,
according
to them....

SNORT!


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.....


Exactly.

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'.


Discussion is not what the invective-hurlers want, Mike.

You're right. Your multi-angle psk is the closest thing to
possibility that I have seen yet. For Satellites and other UHF
applications, it starts to become possible/practical:

http://www.tech-faq.com/qpsk.shtml

They also write about 8psk. Note that link degradation is an issue.


Here on HF, we just don't have the proper conditions. I can do
quadrature mode, but almost no one does. I've done some QSO's using
BPSK63, but of course that uses more BW.

But imagine! Someone (you) writing about something with a real
possibility, not just calling me stupid or ignorant, etc!!!!

Sunnavagun (with apologies to Hans)
BTW, 20 meters is going to town tonight!

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

The clock in a ~4GHz computer and DDR memory makes modem data xfr look
incredibly s-l-o-w.... with spaces miles long between marker bits...

100Mbs nic cards are not even close to a challenge to that clock
speed...


Um, John, just as a simple experiment, what do you get when you
modulate say a 14 MHz signal with that 4 GHz signal?

note: not that you would do that for a live video system, but are you
starting to see my point? What happens at the computer is not the issue.
It is what happens at the frequency we are trying to use.

Computer clock speed is not relevant to the the issue. It is how much
data an HF signal can handle.

There have been a lot of engineers, mathematicians and programmers
working on this problem. If you have a method of doing this, I
*strongly* suggest that you hire a patent attorney, and get to work. You
are gonna be rich, man!

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Let's stay relevant here, enough of your fancy dancing...

The question is, "What do you get when you modulate a HF RF signal
with a 5K audio (speech or modem) signal?

Answer:
A transmission highly acceptable to the FCC, the ARRL and probably GOD
himself!

ROFLOL!

John

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

The clock in a ~4GHz computer and DDR memory makes modem data xfr
look incredibly s-l-o-w.... with spaces miles long between marker
bits...

100Mbs nic cards are not even close to a challenge to that clock
speed...


Um, John, just as a simple experiment, what do you get when you
modulate say a 14 MHz signal with that 4 GHz signal?

note: not that you would do that for a live video system, but are
you starting to see my point? What happens at the computer is not
the issue. It is what happens at the frequency we are trying to use.

Computer clock speed is not relevant to the the issue. It is how
much data an HF signal can handle.

There have been a lot of engineers, mathematicians and programmers
working on this problem. If you have a method of doing this, I
*strongly* suggest that you hire a patent attorney, and get to work.
You are gonna be rich, man!

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Yanno. Have you ever even seen a 56K USRobotics Courier Modem (the
very first ones were 36K and upgraded with a simple 56K flash--upgrade
from software to their internal static memory--when the upgrade
finally became available)

As, there was "controversy" back then if a 56K modem ran on phone
lines would cause interference, "cross talk", etc., it all turned out
to be a ridiculous argument--one akin to the one posed of hooking a
fast modem to a xmitter...

It sold for ~$350.00+ when new (about 1995-1999) and does ALL data
processing within itself (it has a 8086 intel processor onboard), this
includes compaction/de-compaction, error control, line-signal power
adjustments, feeding/pulling data, etc. It virtually "pumps" data to
the computer buffers and virtually "yanks" data from them (I think I
have heard the data screaming at times! grin)

It virtually is a standalone computer with but one function in life,
send and recv data. It is a black box about 6 inches wide, 12 inches
long and under 2 inches high. During the usefulness of 56K modems it
had no equal--that stands to this very day.

It virtually puts NO demand/load on the computers processor, and
insists on doing EVERYTHING itself...

.... one reason it is termed the "v.everything" by USR... it is
software upgradeable with 512,000 bytes of read-only flash memory. It
was a marvel of technology in the data transmission field, it really
still is...

A piece of hardware like that simplifies the project from the very
beginning... you might be lucky enough to find an old one on ebay...
the "sportster" models are NOT ONE-HALF the modem a courier is...

.... when it hits error free transmission of data in the "kludged use"
of it, the data throughput is actually just a hair (few bytes) less
than 57K. It can actually keep logs and display data throughput to
your screen all on its own...

John

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

The clock in a ~4GHz computer and DDR memory makes modem data xfr
look incredibly s-l-o-w.... with spaces miles long between marker
bits...

100Mbs nic cards are not even close to a challenge to that clock
speed...


Um, John, just as a simple experiment, what do you get when you
modulate say a 14 MHz signal with that 4 GHz signal?

note: not that you would do that for a live video system, but are
you starting to see my point? What happens at the computer is not
the issue. It is what happens at the frequency we are trying to use.

Computer clock speed is not relevant to the the issue. It is how
much data an HF signal can handle.

There have been a lot of engineers, mathematicians and programmers
working on this problem. If you have a method of doing this, I
*strongly* suggest that you hire a patent attorney, and get to work.
You are gonna be rich, man!

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

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