|
From: Michael Coslo on Mon 8 Aug 2005 11:12
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm "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. The signals are at an HF rate. Does that make them HF? Tsk, tsk. Haven't you been reading the ARRL Lab reports like a good little ham? Access BPL (Broadband over Power Lines) is ALL OVER HF and dribbles over into low VHF. Hundreds, thousands of sideband components at enough strength right next to your residence to completely swamp your beloved HF receiver. If you have BPL running through your neighborhood say goodbye to "working the rare ones" with "CW"...even "CW" can't work-through all that QRM. [I really cannot believe you wrote what you did to display such utter lack of knowledge about the subject after it has received so much attention in here and on the FCC OET] non com |
From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:27
Len: Phone lines are limited to roughly 38K by using the full audio bandwidth a phone line is filtered to, with the early compression techniques. 56K is obtained by improved data compression techniques. Any line capable of supporting transmission of these audio freaks can carry that much digital data (roughly +/-300hz to +/-5,000hz. [small point of order, upper limit about 3.4 KHz, no huhu...] Both AM and PM at discrete increments push at the upper limit by using more increments (enabling more states) but that increases the probability of error. The present "56K" standard is a compromise. The combinatorial AM-PM makes throughput greater than either AM or PM by themselves...not easily explained in text, needs graphical plotting. DSL is obtained by pulling all the filters from the line, audio bandwidth is much expanded and much greater data can be crammed into that bandwidth, with even greater efficient compression techniques. True, and the providers are able to cram more charges onto one's bill for that...:-) Powerlines can support near/equal such bandwidths. With a bandwidth allowing freqs to climb into the LF RF freqs, tremendous data speeds are possible.... very localized interference to some rf freqs may be generated... this is now in a testing phase... In theory the Access BPL (what the FCC now calls it) can do roughly 50 to 100 MBPS on proposed systems. That's on par with the downlink cable TV services providing the same thing. The MAJOR problem with Access BPL running through one's neighborhood is that those can kiss their HF receiver sensitivities bye-bye. Most of the tested BPL systems raise the sensitivity floor 30 db or more. By the way, it would seem that the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC is getting stiffer with the BPL providers. Saw this in scanning the Federal Register contents looking for a Notice on WT Docket 05-235...it isn't all on the OET page at the FCC website. The techno people may be "getting even" in a small way with the political people at 455 12th St SW. :-) Why this is so misunderstood is beyond explanation, or perhaps it is only limited to the older generations, for some unknown reason--as any familiar with technical details of data transmission methods and protocols should know this, it is very basic stuff... IRRELEVANT to the amateur radio publications' editors. Those guys have to bow to pressure from their front office people (publishers) and "make it simple" for the readers. They seem to be of the opinion that hams are JUST radio operators. Since the periodicals NEED advertisers to pay their way, they tend to kowtow towards the advertisers offering hardware. "Sidebands" as a result of modulations go only so far as voice transmissions in the ham "textbooks." [operators don't need smarts on theory?] Publishers and editors don't shine spotlights much on anything but AM voice sidebands...which may be THEIR deficiency. Radio amateurs get their theory where they can and that is mostly from the periodicals. If that theory ain't in those issues it seldom gets to the ham ops' heads. The publisher decides what goes in them magazines. You may not have seen the ham magazines of the 50s when single channel SSB voice was beginning to take off. There was great antipathy towards PHASING methods of modulation- demodulation of SSB. Hams weren't told about PHASE, didn't have the tools to see phase, few could afford 'scopes that had passbands beyond 5 MHz. It was EASIER to build filter SSB mod-demod even though it CO$T a lot more for those crystal filters. Less thinking involved. AM voice spectra was easier to understand and "brute-force" filtering to eliminate an unwanted sideband almost intuitive. Despite some good attempts at showing PHASING methods in the 50's magazines, readers and editors alike didn't like it. Even after Mike Gingell (UK ham, now living in USA) did his Polyphase Network PhD paper on a low-cost, easy-component-tolerance quadrature phase circuit, the U.S. periodicals didn't care for it. The RSGB did and showed How and showed what UK and Yurp hams were doing with it in the pages of Radio Communication. That was 30 years ago...but European hams are having fun with that Gingell polyphase network in homebrew SSB building. When it comes to Spread Spectrum and the Discrete Sequence SS, forget trying to explain the sidebands generated to radio operators. That subject doesn't help them win contest points or "work the rare ones." ["we" hams don't use that snit!] Forget spectra pictures of any modulation other than AM with a pure sinewave modulation input. Agreed, FM or PM at various modulation indexes can get confusing...H-P (just before they changed name to Agilent) had a neat "movie" on varying the index and showing how the sideband content changed, was done on their website but can't be done in printed magazines. FM broadcasters commonly calibrate their modulation indices by the "carrier null" method where, at a certain modulation index with a given frequency mod signal, the carrier goes to minimum power as seen on a narrowband detector. That's been happening for over 40 years, a well-known technique. Nah, hams don't need all that (hack, ptui) THEORY. All they need is high-rate MORSEMANSHIP! to be extra-super-special. Screum. bit off |
Mike Coslo wrote: a bunch of snippage I have to note that we speak of actual systems, real world devices - some of which are yet to be made of course, but practicalities (granted you much more than myself - but I am an RF neophyte, having come from the digital world) I have to restart this sentence to make it legible. Forgive me, things have been interesting lately. The systems you and I speak of are arguably buildable. There is solid theory behind them. Others seem to be more in the vein of "so there! or someone is going to come along and prove you naysayers wrong!" mode. Which is to say they are arguable only by people who just want to argue. Faith based electronics. I wonder how that tremendous antenna from the UofD is coming along? You know, the one that is going to revolutionize radio? HF antennas a few feet long that outperform anything we have today. The one that was so "efficient" that it melted when the inventor powered it with 100 watts. And I'm not the one who used the word efficient, *they* did. Oy oy oy - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dave:
You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them... Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in the way... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... John Smith wrote: Dave: I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything... I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something new. nor do I care, your banter becomes taxing... If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your disjointed stuff from this side. I have not only had the chance to see the text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common denominator to all is--well, so be it... You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too! however, I have formed an opinion of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with... Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick dismissal. Dave K8MN John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Cut the BS. You don't like me. I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now, you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him appear to be drinking or heavily medicated. You seek to discredit and make ground though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish... How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist? I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it may do for you... My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt. My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere. The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose. The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting to present something as factual--you have my actual view. That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works. Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council. My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank. My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because you haven't a face or a name? Spot on. My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims. So which B.S. is left to cut? Dave K8MN John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when he assumed a pen name. I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin. Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author has adopted a pen name? If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as "John Smith"? Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage name? I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"? Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name, and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?" You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the variety "John Smith". Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept... Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit and worth has been addressed or established. a good old buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass" or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind the idea! Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet drape to present his views. Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a character to attack--character assassination is your forte! You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how you voted*. You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here I am attacking your statements. Go figure! You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is presented--strange... Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer. Dave K8MN John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, 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. Dave K8MN |
|
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? Maybe BPL is the answer to hams who can't put up HF antennas? :-) CQ BPL CQ BPL CQ BPL... I wonder why they have to have wireless routers and receivers (what frequency do they operate at?...) Around 2.4GHz or elsewhere in the microwave band. 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? |
John Smith wrote:
Len: Phone lines are limited to roughly 38K by using the full audio bandwidth a phone line is filtered to, with the early compression techniques. 56K is obtained by improved data compression techniques. Any line capable of supporting transmission of these audio freaks can carry that much digital data (roughly +/-300hz to +/-5,000hz. DSL is obtained by pulling all the filters from the line, audio bandwidth is much expanded and much greater data can be crammed into that bandwidth, with even greater efficient compression techniques. Powerlines can support near/equal such bandwidths. With a bandwidth allowing freqs to climb into the LF RF freqs, tremendous data speeds are possible.... very localized interference to some rf freqs may be generated... this is now in a testing phase... Why this is so misunderstood is beyond explanation, or perhaps it is only limited to the older generations, for some unknown reason--as any familiar with technical details of data transmission methods and protocols should know this, it is very basic stuff... Only thing is that a DSL connection has a dedicated twisted pair of wires, but BPL you have to share with everyone else in town. Like cable modems, though the cable company cuts up their network so only a handful of users share. With BPL the entire towns' users have to share one channel. Now if you're the only user in town, you got it made (unless a ham fires up his linear...) |
The only filtering on our HF systems was the crystal filters in the IF's and
my ears. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dan: Too bad the americans had not developed HS Digital Checksum Error Corrected Voice Transmission Packet methods over spread spectrum... could have filtered the CW audio and went right on, would have pi$$ed 'em off in style! Oh well, too late for back then, but today we can! John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:35 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote: Of course, but Communism is done, right??? hi hi. Russia has NOT dropped Morse. Nor has most of the ex Eastern Block countries. Years ago when I was in Germany in the US Army it was decided to fire back up on CW training. The reason was because the Ruskies were having a field day trashing our HF nets. We were on AM/SSB/RATT (RTTY), and they would get close, or right on top of them on CW. It was a total flop because hardly anyone in the US Military new Morse well enough to copy it. Point is this. The Russians and their close neighbors are smart enough to realize Morse is a worth while mode and will continue its use. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dan: What communist counties do is almost always in the interest of the shadow gov't really running the country. That is supposed to be surprising? John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:06:36 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote: Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations have all decided to keep CW. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there is not... Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select few... It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task... There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as meaningful today as the day it was written... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John At least that's how you do it, "John". Dave K8MN On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... The only thing WRONG with this back-and-forth is Dan's claim of Disability from Vietnam. The Vietnam War ended in 1975, THIRTY YEARS AGO. Had he been in communications with the military in Yurp "after" that, he wouldn't have any "disability" since he would be on active duty. If Dan Jeswald got out of the military DUE to warfare in Vietnam, then his personal experience from Yurp military exercises is THIRTY YEARS OLD. cut and paste snipped Lennie, If you actually knew what you think you know then you would indeed be a dangerous man. What your actually are is a pitiful excuse for a human being. One who lives in the paste and because of his inability to learn Morse code has decided to take it out on those that could, and did. You know absolutely nothing about my military situation, other than the easily obtained information such as dates of service. I'll save you the trouble. Perhaps you can figure it out. If not I'll be glad to help. June 1964 to June 1968 USAF April 1971 to Dec 1979 US ARMY Had he been in communications with the military in Yurp "after" that, he wouldn't have any "disability" since he would be on active duty. I passed my Army physical in 1971, passed Army basic at Ft. Knox in 1971 and was assigned to Hanau, Germany. I came stateside for a tour at Ft. McClellan then back to Germany again. Fulda this time with the 11th Armored Cavalary. From 1972 until I left service I was on medical profile. I ELECTED to get out and went to the VA and received 50%, later upgraded to the present 100%. Your ignorance is glowing Lennie, only overshadowed by your stupidity. Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com