|
Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! It is a conspiracy, Dave. The FCC is inflating the numbers of Hams for some reason, even though the conspiracists on the other side think they would like there to be *fewer* Hams, so that the FCC can have a good excuse to take away our band segments. Make sense? No? I think its related to Chemtrails somehow...... ;^) Finally, do some of these folks have some trouble with their antennas or something? When I tune our bands, I hear a *lot* of activity. And it isn't just on contest weekends. On those weekends the bands are wall to wall. Only open spots are around the Maritime nets, and it is wise to leave them some space. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith wrote: Dee: Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the 70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse than imagined in my worst nightmare! It's a nice story. It is a pity that t'ain't true. I've run pileups spanning five to seven KHz for as long as six hours at a time, working 200-300 CW QSOs per hour. That happened as recently as 2000. DXing and contesting aren't games about twenty and thirty years ago, they're about what you've done lately. Contest scores have gotten bigger. The top scorers work more stations than were worked two or three decades ago. There are domestic scores now which top the world high scores of that many years ago. That has been my experience too Dave. Must be an alternate universe where this other stuff is going on.... - Mike KB3EIA - |
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for invisible facts. - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time. agreed there are reasons of course as there were then but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done Where did I say that? Of course it can be done. Wireless digital at HF is similar to wireless at UHF and above. You just have a few things at HF that are different. Noise is one of the differences. bandwidth is another. If you are willing to out up with very slow transmissions, Digital at HF is doable. Won't be high speed though, and it won't work terribly well. I choose to look at a thorny problem and try to see if I can make lemonaide, maybe brew those throns in a decent cup of Tea Well have at it, Mark! Occasionally the naysayers are proven wrong. Jim had a few ideas that might be of some use. They have some flaws though, as in requireing high power, special transmitters and recievers, and most still use too much bandwidth. Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that knowledge. Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data transmission? in sprict order asking I don't know, don't know, difering weather conidctions, and becuase comercail needs relaiblity where we hams are free to spend on trying stuff when was that Jim A long, long time ago. When almost nothing was known about propagation. and if folks had listene to experts of the day what would we have today Experimentation proved them wrong. The experimentors then became the new experts. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Len: As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith" to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on. This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again! Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a cheap motel with some floozy. For all the bluff and bluster about how the internet is a dangerous place, and only a fool would use their real identity, it is a telling point to note that the anonymous brethren are the ones causing most of the trouble. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: We know pretty closely how many individuals there are with current (unexpired) FCC-issued amateur radio licenses - about 664,000 What we don't know is how many of those ~664,000 fall into the following categories: - Inactive due to being dead - Inactive due to being seriously sick or injured - Inactive due to loss of interest - Inactive due to lack of resources (time, money, space, etc.) - Slightly active - Moderately active - Very active Worse, the definitions of the last three categories are entirely subjective. If a ham is on the air 100 hours per year, is that ham slightly, moderately, or very active? How do other systems work? I suspect that they count licensees, and work with that. At renewal time, adjustments are made. Many other systems (like cb) require no license at all, so there's no good way to know how many users there are. The fact that a certain number of cb sets have been sold in the past X years tells nothing definite about how many cb users there really are. Same for stuff like FRS. OTOH most broadcast and commercial licenses require usage as a condition of grant. A broadcast station can (in theory) lose its license if it has too many avoidable outages. Of course the most prevalent use of two-way radio is the cell phone. The license, as it were, is held by the provider(s). Of course the users have almost no control over what the radio in a cell phone does. This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. To some folks, their opinions *are* facts. To too many..... So why bother with them? If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. No, it's just somebody's opinion. yup If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. Actually, you *can* hook up a 56K modem to your HF rig and "go digital". Doesn't mean it will work.... Note that almost all dialup modems have the ability to operate at less than 56K. Backwards compatibility and all that. Some will go all the way back to 300 baud. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. Ham radio has always been "dying" - and always being reborn. Yeah, just like "The Family" Always under attack, always going downhill" and on and on. Reminds me of the radio ads for stores that are having their "Biggest Sale Ever!" The next week that are having another biggest sale ever. Seems if we just wait a short while, they'll be giving the stuff away, or paying us to take it away. "20th Annual Going Out Of Business Sale!" I was around back in 1968 when some folks said that 'incentive licensing' would 'kill amateur radio'. Those folks said it was completely unreasonable to expect or even ask the average ham to get an Advanced, let alone an Extra. Yet in the decade after those new requirements were put in place, the number of US hams grew from about 250,000 to about 350,000. And that was before the VE system and published question pools. Sure, some of that was helped by the Bash books, but there were no Bash books for 20 wpm Morse Code. Bash Keys??? HAW! The requirements were *raised* and ham radio *grew*....what a concept You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? Exactly! It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for invisible facts. Yup. Like folks who claim that 57% is not a majority... they were just like, sayin' 8^) It's a classic troll trick. They make statements that are provably false just to get attention. Then they argue that what they say is true, or you didn't understand it, or you've been brainwashed by ARRL, etc. BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. So send small files! Well, yeah! But if we are going to have a new mode, it needs to have some good features. They can be speed, quality, or even coolness (say the digital form of Hell-field) So here we have digital transmission in a sort of competition with SSTV. The images have to be pretty small, and most have to be compressed to the point that they are pretty poor compared to a good SSTV image. So the only advantage that I can see for this digital method is when the signal is weak and noisy. Then the digital image will be better. Of course the patience of Job will be needed for all the error correction needed Slow...error prone...not used by other services... HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. A lot depends on what you mean by "high speed", and what resources you can use. If you're used to 45 baud RTTY, 1200 baud is high speed, isn't it? For example, if you're allowed to use wide-enough bandwidths, all sorts of stuff is possible. Sure. I think some people are believing that I am saying this is impossible. It is not impossible. But not very practical. I'd have to work it out, but I think there are some ham segments where we'd need more bandwidth than is alloted The difference is that unlike, say, the US Army in 1952, there is no High Command that determines who gets what frequencies for what path at what time. If you're allowed to use very high power and high gain antennas, all sorts of stuff is possible. A strong signal mode? 8^) Sure! Look at what the military folks did. Big rhombic and curtain arrays, etc. Find a suitable site, take it over as necessary for the military purpose, put up whatever is needed - on the taxpayer's dollars. If you need more power, just get it! Receivers like the R-390, costing thousands of 1950s dollars? How many racks of them are needed? Etc. Completely different from what most hams deal with. If you can separate the transmit and receive sites and/or frequencies so that full duplex is achieved, all sorts of things are possible. OY! Very common military and commercial practice. If your setup has adaptive features so that it evaluates the path characteristics and adapts the modulation and frequencies used to conditions, all sorts of things are possible. Doubly Oy! It's what ALE is all about. Of course most of the above is simply not practical for the average ham, and/or is incompatible with current US regulations. really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M Hams were never banished to everything above 200 meters. What happened was that amateur stations were required to use only wavelengths of 200 meters and below. But every station had a specified wavelength. If a ham wanted to use, say, 159 meters, s/he needed a station license that said "159 meters". In 1912 there wasn't much known about how HF propagation actually worked. The 'useless' idea came from extrapolation of what happened on longer wavelengths. The ionosphere's role was not even guessed at by "professionals in radio". There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time. Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that knowledge. Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data transmission? All very good questions! when was that Jim A long, long time ago. When almost nothing was known about propagation. Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but along the same lines Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way to HF digital soon. 8^) I don't have my CQ handy, but it took them a fair amount of time (measured in minutes IIRC, to transmit some heavily compressed (beyond maximum jpeg compression), and therefore really poor quality (by almost everyones standard) pictures. Didn't I make a challenge with some of the HF high-speed digital believers in here to do a sked? I think the "answer" was that I was going to steal the technology. You can't steal vaporware. Not that that is likely, but how about say some of the believers among themselves, do a proof of performance of the technology? Or is this just one of those Wondertenna type ideas that crop up from time to time, only to be found lacking when introduced into the real world? Heck, Mike, you want *practical* stuff? You betchya! Don't expect it from "John Smith", Len, "b.b.", or even "an old friend". You won't get it. They're not about actually *doing* ham radio, just arguing about it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission of high speed digital transmission?" Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him Sweetums, you've been plugging for that all by yourself for lots of messages in here. You NEGLECT any other forms of communications and concentrate on imagery, many-pixel images. "HF will never be the place for high-speed transmission?" What do you "extra experts" think BPL is basically? Clue: High-speed data transmission, most of it on HF. Gee, Len, BPL isn't supposed to be radio at all. Fill us in on the various intended BPL wireless propagation media. Those power lines are intended to be antennas? I wonder why they have to have wireless routers and receivers (what frequency do they operate at?...) Seems like if it is HF already, we shouldn't have to use them. I can see a little HF receiver hooked to my computer, and make a little antenna from what would ordinarily go into my Ethernet port. That should work, shouldn't it? Maybe it is a conspiracy to sell electronic parts? - Mike KB3EIA |
From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:42
Dave: I don't agree with bush on a lot, but don't want to focus on running for president either. Wasn't really happy with some teachers my son had, but didn't want to go full-time academic either. I really don't like the way the garbage men handle the trash, but refrain from that line of work also... Really, make sense, drop the BS and out-right crap... John Another small history lesson on the newsgroup for you, John: About 7 or 8 years ago, Obersturmbandsfuhrer Heil stormed in here making like the Authoritative Elmer of all Elmers, spouting off about "CW" is way so much better than RTTY and illustrating that with his saving-the-day actions from Guinea-Bisseau in Africa for the Department of State, his employer at the time (in the "foreign service"). That was in the 1980s. He was then, as he is now, an Ultimate Authority on HF from his many many years as a ham (probably working a minimum of 8 hours a day on his ham job) and waded into the morse code testing arguments as Mister Morseman (a "foreign service" counterpart to "Captain Code"). Unfamiliar with this country of Guinea-Bisseau, I had to look it up. Found out it was NOT a prosperous country and that its chief export was cashew nuts. I stated that and Heil got very angry. [he was a "key employee" or something at State as a "communications officer"...blah blah blah] How dare *I* question ANY statements of Heil's! :-) Heil got ****ed and a half when I recounted the HF comms done by the U.S. Army of the 1950s...using mainly RTTY and TTY over (commercial format) SSB...NOT encountering these "bad conditions" where "only 'CW' would get through" (and saving- the-day). Heil tried to make the argument that "CW" was "necessary" and all that old snit. Heil stated that "my station" (taxpayer owned, actually) "NEVER WORKED 24/7!" Tsk, four operating teams very certainly worked the 3rd largest Army station in ACAN-STARCOM then, using about 40 transmitters shooting across the Pacific south-east-west from Tokyo, all around the clock. NO "CW" (manual morse code) used by my battalion that served the Headquarters for the Far East Command then...none later...all on HF. Heil committed some small gaffes in his rationalizations on what he wrote...specifically that the "CW" was needed to "synchronize" the RTTY schedules. Any TTY is automatically self-synchronizeable, has been since before WW2 times. Heil then "explained" that "synchronizing" meant schedule times and so forth. Odd that such wouldn't have been worked out beforehand in operating orders, common to everyone else. Heil got most disturbed on my descriptions of the Army net being BIGGER than what State had (it was) and said "I didn't know anything about what State's radio had/did." Tsk, I did and already possessed a great deal of documentation obtained from Army sources and a few items of contractors supplying the U.S. government (the RCA "RACES" mass memory on mag cards, two of which were installed in DC at State's headquarters). Heil did not realize that some of the Department of State messages were actually carried on Army and Air Force communications circuits...more in Europe than in Asia. [I can identify the stations, the TTY ID, paths, and controlling hubs on all of ACAN-STARCOM from publicly-released information available before 1980, stuff that I have, obtained from a civilian engineer acquaintence who worked at "my" Army station] Heil engages in a lot of Gamesmanship in here, frequently citing his many State assignments (Finland, several countries in Africa). He WAS DX to a lot of other hams, courtesy of the U.S. government and complementary callsigns given to "diplomatic" personnel of the USA. Problem is, Department of State radio is rather smaller than the U.S. military networks and the retirees from State's radio are a tiny percentage of "radio operators." Now the military networks' former members are also a small percentage...but they are larger than civil government "radio operators." The more vocal hams with previous military radio experience seem to come from the USN and those mostly from ship "radio room" assignments. Heil seems to be banking on his Department of State experience being rare, thus he can bull**** his way into posing as a Great Authority on What The Government Does In Radio among amateur radio hobbyists. Heil shows no sign of having worked IN the larger military radio communications networks during his military service...yet he implies knowing all about them. He knows little and all he can do is the BS implication that he does. A shock to Heil must have been my appearance in here, an unlicensed-in-amateur-radio person who is no shrinking violet on opinions! Even worse, one who HAS documentary proof to counter most of the total bull**** spouted by this great "radio expert." [three such documents posted on http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment] Perhaps he was disturbed that I didn't polish the boots of his surplus Wehrmacht costume from Western Casting? Could be. Heil, like Robeson, vents a lot of anger in here, always trying to verbally thrash his "opponents" on a personal basis. SUBJECT be damned, he wants to "fight" on a one- to-one basis anyone who speaks against his opinions. In the last half year Heil has whittled a schtick about my "not being a participant in ham radio" etc. and thinks that is some kind of psywar "weapon." It isn't. Contrary to Fearless Leader's instruction-commands, I didn't get a ham license FIRST "to show an interest in radio." The Army provided the opportunity to INCREASE my interest in radio (since 1947 along with lots of other interests) and I "disobeyed orders" by getting a Commercial First Phone in 1956 and then became an electronics design engineer. No, no, no, that was NOT the Order Of The Day...I should have dutifully learned morsemanship to become an amateur first according to Fearless Leader Heil. Screum. USA 1st |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com