|
Dave:
No dave, I dismiss your posts because there is nothing there of substance, usually. I find them usually just be contradictory just for the sake of contradiction, others may decide for themselves... I don't argue what I know is fact, no sense in it, most times I would expect googling would provide anything necessary to prove it one way or another. Other times I suppose you would have had to have worked with the hardware and/or software to know... when you obviously have not, yet choose to argue something, which is obvious to me you have no clue on, I have no choice but to end it, arguing further would be pointless, you are free to carry on as you choose, just no longer at the expense of my time. You may call all the names you like, hold any opinion you like, give any opinion you hold of me, or anyone else for that matter, in the end it just doesn't matter. You wish your opinions to matter to me--I cannot help you there, seems like life itself would have taught you about that... You repeat you have an issue with my anonymity, perhaps anyones, so be it, get over it or set there and dwell upon, you don't need my company... John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:03:22 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle... Your posts? It seems that way. You make a false statement and then dismiss anything which runs counter to it. As an example, you have a beef with my saying, "John Smith is not real". Well, "John", you aren't. There's nothing circular about it. You complain over my opinion that anonymous posters shouldn't be given any credence. You don't provide a valid reason why anyone should give them credence. You tried to put words in my mouth when you wrote (and put into quotes): "It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!" but I didn't write that--you did. How do you account for that? You start with a false premise and quickly veer away or become dismissive when someone confronts you with the falsehood. krist, no wonder your posts seems do dizzy! I'm sure they seem that way to you, "John". My posts seem dizzy because they address specific things which you've written. Yet you don't address my points in response at all. That's the nice thing about being an anonymous troll. Dave K8MN John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:23:20 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real", Circular? Hell, that's fact, "John". You're hiding behind a mask. "anonymous posters are NOT to be given credence!" That is my very sincere opinion. I give you no credence, especially after reading your rants. , "It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!", etc... You've attributed that to me but it not something I've written. You wrote it. Go have an argument with yourself over it. yawn You boring yourself? Dave K8MN John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: 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... Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here". I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan. Dave K8MN "Dave Heil" wrote in message arthlink.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 |
AOF:
I am sorry it seems like a mystery, what I am "up to", I am simply observing a time in radio history like has never been before and may never come again, at least in my lifetime... old barriers are falling, a new influence will soon find its' way on to the amateur bands. It is obvious to me antiquated technology dominates the ham bands, the old timers and not accepting the new equipment and the state of the hobby lies in stagnation... another phenomenon is that there seems to be a common factor to most of these amateurs, they resist change--like it strikes fear in them... certainly I am not the only one to see home this "group of old buddies" have banded together around this "common denominator?" I am thrilled over the prospect of new hams entering in meaningful numbers, manufacturers taking note, and dynamic changes occurring which returns some of the excitement back to the hobby... surely everyone realizes that not even the manufacturers who make ham equip can get very excited about the sales potential of new ideas, new hardware and new software to this very small market... .... believe it or not, I am quite excited about all of this--watching it unfold. Seeing how a few personalities are able to influence others will and "fool" them along on this rather bizarre rut they have been stuck in ... I have always been a "radio loner." Have always though it ridiculous to see the "high school feud" between hams and cb'ers. I have always enjoyed a good cb rig. You know what the real difference is between hams and cb'ers? About a megacycle, a short jump from the 11 meter band to the 10 meter... about a single footstep. Guess that is how I escaped the trap I observe here, I never seen a wall there. And, now with the elimination of code, I expect none to find a wall there at all... It really ain't no big thang, 10-fer good buddie? grin John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:14:37 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle... Your posts? It seems that way. You make a false statement and then dismiss anything which runs counter to it. As an example, you have a beef with my saying, "John Smith is not real". Well, "John", you aren't. There's nothing circular about it. eniterely circlar Dave You complain over my opinion that anonymous posters shouldn't be given any credence. You don't provide a valid reason why anyone should give them credence. But you clearly give credence by going on and on that they do not have credence you sound like Stevie, claiming he doesn't care what his targets say and dreicting most of his output towards them John need not, indeed can not provide a vaild reason, each person must do that or not do it for themselves You tried to put words in my mouth when you wrote (and put into quotes): "It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!" but I didn't write that--you did. How do you account for that? it certainly the case you are not influenced by facts, few humans really are, the matter is mostly one of personalities You start with a false premise and quickly veer away or become dismissive when someone confronts you with the falsehood. you guys realy need to learn the difference beteween Falsehood and simple difference of point of view krist, no wonder your posts seems do dizzy! I'm sure they seem that way to you, "John". My posts seem dizzy because they address specific things which you've written. Yet you don't you don't have control over your world indeed no one does really merely the ilusion of control you come back to insiting on the same thing the right to control the discussion, you can't, you can only influence it address my points in response at all. That's the nice thing about being an anonymous troll. or simply in exercising Human choice Dave K8MN not entirely sure what John is up to, which is of course part of the fun in watching |
|
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: And I'm starting to think that some of them might be duplicates anyhow. Quitefine and Darkguard (nee Blackguard) indeed! Whatta ya wanna bet that "Anon John" is not a licensed anything in radio? Doesn't matter - they have nothing practical to offer. Well I dunno about that Mike, jeez, lookit all the leading-edge "solutions" Sweetums has dumped in here over the years . . . They're not about actually *doing* ham radio, just arguing about it. Too bad they cant do a better job. Indeed CW provides a 10dB path gain over SSB with a simple twist of the mode selector knob. Can't wait to find out what the path gain of CW will be vs. all the furiously hyped HF digital modes. None of which actually exist 10-15 years later of course. Big surprise huh? RX front ends: One can sink thousands upon thousands of bucks into current-tech xcvrs which, by current standards, are the masters of front-end performance. IC-7800, Orion, FT-9000, etc. IF and ONLY if the atmospheric + QRN noise levels are below the RX noise floor. If not a kid with a "hopeless" $200 old crapper xcvr in a quiet location will spank the pants off any of the aforementioned big boxes. If the kid has also learned how to use his ears to duck around strong adjacent signals and how to copy thru his crummy RX noise floor he'll have another pile of dB gain over the clueless who only have money, mouths and keyboards in some combiation or another. Beyond this comes the subject of "operator skills". Oh Good Lord I forgot again: Discussions about operator skills have nothing to do with technical or policy "matters". . apologies . . These are the realities of REAL ham radio. Fuggem, let 'em eat cake and rant on. Quite! - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
Kelly:
Attempt to kill the messenger... ancient philosophy there, but why doesn't it surprise me the clueless always fall to it when out of legit arguments? John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:24:33 -0700, kelly wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: And I'm starting to think that some of them might be duplicates anyhow. Quitefine and Darkguard (nee Blackguard) indeed! Whatta ya wanna bet that "Anon John" is not a licensed anything in radio? Doesn't matter - they have nothing practical to offer. Well I dunno about that Mike, jeez, lookit all the leading-edge "solutions" Sweetums has dumped in here over the years . . . They're not about actually *doing* ham radio, just arguing about it. Too bad they cant do a better job. Indeed CW provides a 10dB path gain over SSB with a simple twist of the mode selector knob. Can't wait to find out what the path gain of CW will be vs. all the furiously hyped HF digital modes. None of which actually exist 10-15 years later of course. Big surprise huh? RX front ends: One can sink thousands upon thousands of bucks into current-tech xcvrs which, by current standards, are the masters of front-end performance. IC-7800, Orion, FT-9000, etc. IF and ONLY if the atmospheric + QRN noise levels are below the RX noise floor. If not a kid with a "hopeless" $200 old crapper xcvr in a quiet location will spank the pants off any of the aforementioned big boxes. If the kid has also learned how to use his ears to duck around strong adjacent signals and how to copy thru his crummy RX noise floor he'll have another pile of dB gain over the clueless who only have money, mouths and keyboards in some combiation or another. Beyond this comes the subject of "operator skills". Oh Good Lord I forgot again: Discussions about operator skills have nothing to do with technical or policy "matters". . apologies . . These are the realities of REAL ham radio. Fuggem, let 'em eat cake and rant on. Quite! - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 - that's predictable by Shannon's. It's not hard to understand and explain, if you really understand what Shannon is all about. (Some folks make a lot of noise about it, acting as if it's some big deal, but it's really quite easy to understand.) Consider this situation: Plain old on-off keying lets you send one unit of information per unit time. Either a 1 or a 0, on or off. Digital and all that. But suppose we have a system (transmitter, receiver and connection between them)that has four states - 100% on, 66% on, 33% on, and off (0% on). We can then apply a meaning to those four states - say, 11, 10, 01, and 00, respectively - and send two units of information per unit time in the *same* bandwidth. We've just doubled the data rate without changing the modulation method, bandwidth, or basic keying rate. But for it to work, the system must have good enough signal-to-noise ratio to determine the four states reliably. That principle can be continued as far as our signal-to-noise ratio allows. For example, a system of 128 states could be done, if the system S/N is good enough, allowing the transmission of seven units of information per unit time in the same bandwidth as was previously used for one unit. IIRC we had this conversation before, only it was about a PSK system with many more states, rather than an AMK system. And there's no reason multiple carriers can't be used, as well as multiple ways of modulating the same carrier - say phase and amplitude modulation at the same time. Of course the entire system has to have adequate s/n to deal with the tiny variations of phase and amplitude. I can see the needed s/n ratio going up with each addition. Exactly! Point is, if you can get the S/N high enough, you can put lots more data through the same bandwidth. There's no one answer to "how much data can I put through a bandwidth of X Hz", because it's related to things like S/N and modulation method. Tradeoffs, ES101 stuff. Telephone line modems make use of the predictable stability and characteristics of the telephone lines. HF radio is a bit less stable. And yet even here, I can remember paying extra for a modem line, which was quieter than a regular phone line. I don't know if there are such things any more - its been a long time since I've used dial-up. Otherwise you slow to a crawl, as error checking struggles to keep up with line noise s/n. The 'phone companies have cleaned up their act so much that most lines will not only support 56k dialup, they'll also support DSL. Such improvements are almost invisible to the unsuspecting public. They happen over periods of years. Of course if the taxpayers are footing the bill, all sorts of things can be done. 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. Just not too applicable for our purposes. My Elecraft K2 has programmable memories that can be set for each band and mode. Other rigs have similar features. It would not be difficult to have it step through them (using the RS-232 port and computer control) comparing each frequency with the others. With suitable time synchronization between, say, you and I, the rigs could step through the various preprogrammed QRGs, looking for the spot with the best propagation and no QRM. Of course we'd have to set it all up beforehand so we'd - or rather the rigs - would know precisely where to send and listen. The K2's ATU also remembers antenna tuner settings per memory. 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? As much as the S/N allows! See above. Of course! As a practical matter though, we have to assume amateur radio conditions. A real limitation there. Which is why you'll not see the pundits doing any of what they talk about. One of the things that I wonder about with the need for huge s/n handling ratios is that we obviously want a quiet reciever, with a impressive noise floor. This means all of the "oomph" must be on the strong signal handling side. We need an exquisitely sensitive and quiet reciever, with exceptional strong signal handling capacity. Not really. In most situations, HF radio reception is limited by the noise picked up by the antenna, not internal receiver noise. Been that way since at least the 1930s. It does no good to have an HF receiver with, say, .05 uV for 10 dB S/N sensitivity if the antenna picks up .5 uV of noise in the same bandwidth. You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. 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! 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) Others seem to be more in the vein of "so there! or someone is going to come along and prove you naysayers wrong!" mode. Bingo. Faith based electronics. Yes - those who dare to even like modes such as Morse Code are cursed as infidels who do not understand the Word that "newer is always better" and "the PROFESSIONALS know best" If newer is always better, I wonder why these vanguards of the brave new world aren't typing to us stodgy mortals in leet? After all, it's newer. Because it's not about that at all. One of the biggest flaws of many people is that they have no appreciation of mature technology and people. Heck, some of them don't have any apparent maturity themselves... They choose to concentrate on the limitations and foibles of both, not realizing that they are themselves full of their own foibles and limitations. You have to remember that in some folks' minds, newer *is* better, regardless of the reality. It's almost an ideology of constant change as being morally superior. Remember Red China's "cultural revolution" in the 1960s? One of their main ideas was that there would be a constant, continuing revolution in everything - that all the old ideas would be tossed aside, to be replaced by the New. In the process, however, they were unable to do even simple things like feed themselves, and large numbers of people died because of it. Here in the West, the ideology of constant change has to do with selling things. Fads and fashions. In the process, all sorts of bad stuff and waste come and go. Worst of all, there's a sort of addiction to the quick fix rather than real solutions. They create for themselves great effort and even harm in their rush to discard the old, simply to reinvent it. See my post about the Space Shuttle in a different thread. 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. It *is* efficient, Mike! It's very efficient at turning HF RF energy into heat. I've seen better! ;^) Not much better! Don't expect it from "John Smith", Len, "b.b.", or even "an old friend". You won't get it. That's really what it comes down to. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
N2EY:
No sense in attempting to efficiently send data anywhere, unless methods are used which employ efficient data compaction and the use of CRC checksums... it is only there that HS data transmission comes alive... Encryption is good also, unless you want the whole world to know what you are sending... John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:58:53 -0700, N2EY wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 - that's predictable by Shannon's. It's not hard to understand and explain, if you really understand what Shannon is all about. (Some folks make a lot of noise about it, acting as if it's some big deal, but it's really quite easy to understand.) Consider this situation: Plain old on-off keying lets you send one unit of information per unit time. Either a 1 or a 0, on or off. Digital and all that. But suppose we have a system (transmitter, receiver and connection between them)that has four states - 100% on, 66% on, 33% on, and off (0% on). We can then apply a meaning to those four states - say, 11, 10, 01, and 00, respectively - and send two units of information per unit time in the *same* bandwidth. We've just doubled the data rate without changing the modulation method, bandwidth, or basic keying rate. But for it to work, the system must have good enough signal-to-noise ratio to determine the four states reliably. That principle can be continued as far as our signal-to-noise ratio allows. For example, a system of 128 states could be done, if the system S/N is good enough, allowing the transmission of seven units of information per unit time in the same bandwidth as was previously used for one unit. IIRC we had this conversation before, only it was about a PSK system with many more states, rather than an AMK system. And there's no reason multiple carriers can't be used, as well as multiple ways of modulating the same carrier - say phase and amplitude modulation at the same time. Of course the entire system has to have adequate s/n to deal with the tiny variations of phase and amplitude. I can see the needed s/n ratio going up with each addition. Exactly! Point is, if you can get the S/N high enough, you can put lots more data through the same bandwidth. There's no one answer to "how much data can I put through a bandwidth of X Hz", because it's related to things like S/N and modulation method. Tradeoffs, ES101 stuff. Telephone line modems make use of the predictable stability and characteristics of the telephone lines. HF radio is a bit less stable. And yet even here, I can remember paying extra for a modem line, which was quieter than a regular phone line. I don't know if there are such things any more - its been a long time since I've used dial-up. Otherwise you slow to a crawl, as error checking struggles to keep up with line noise s/n. The 'phone companies have cleaned up their act so much that most lines will not only support 56k dialup, they'll also support DSL. Such improvements are almost invisible to the unsuspecting public. They happen over periods of years. Of course if the taxpayers are footing the bill, all sorts of things can be done. 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. Just not too applicable for our purposes. My Elecraft K2 has programmable memories that can be set for each band and mode. Other rigs have similar features. It would not be difficult to have it step through them (using the RS-232 port and computer control) comparing each frequency with the others. With suitable time synchronization between, say, you and I, the rigs could step through the various preprogrammed QRGs, looking for the spot with the best propagation and no QRM. Of course we'd have to set it all up beforehand so we'd - or rather the rigs - would know precisely where to send and listen. The K2's ATU also remembers antenna tuner settings per memory. 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? As much as the S/N allows! See above. Of course! As a practical matter though, we have to assume amateur radio conditions. A real limitation there. Which is why you'll not see the pundits doing any of what they talk about. One of the things that I wonder about with the need for huge s/n handling ratios is that we obviously want a quiet reciever, with a impressive noise floor. This means all of the "oomph" must be on the strong signal handling side. We need an exquisitely sensitive and quiet reciever, with exceptional strong signal handling capacity. Not really. In most situations, HF radio reception is limited by the noise picked up by the antenna, not internal receiver noise. Been that way since at least the 1930s. It does no good to have an HF receiver with, say, .05 uV for 10 dB S/N sensitivity if the antenna picks up .5 uV of noise in the same bandwidth. You don't need a noise generator, lab full of gear or an EE to know if your receiver is sensitive enough. Just do this simple test: 1) Tune the rx to an unoccupied frequency, using the mode and bandwidth you intend to use. 2) Turn off the AGC and turn up the gain until you hear the background noise roaring away. 3) Disconnect the antenna. If the noise drops way down, or disappears, you have all the sensitivity you can use in that application. 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! 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) Others seem to be more in the vein of "so there! or someone is going to come along and prove you naysayers wrong!" mode. Bingo. Faith based electronics. Yes - those who dare to even like modes such as Morse Code are cursed as infidels who do not understand the Word that "newer is always better" and "the PROFESSIONALS know best" If newer is always better, I wonder why these vanguards of the brave new world aren't typing to us stodgy mortals in leet? After all, it's newer. Because it's not about that at all. One of the biggest flaws of many people is that they have no appreciation of mature technology and people. Heck, some of them don't have any apparent maturity themselves... They choose to concentrate on the limitations and foibles of both, not realizing that they are themselves full of their own foibles and limitations. You have to remember that in some folks' minds, newer *is* better, regardless of the reality. It's almost an ideology of constant change as being morally superior. Remember Red China's "cultural revolution" in the 1960s? One of their main ideas was that there would be a constant, continuing revolution in everything - that all the old ideas would be tossed aside, to be replaced by the New. In the process, however, they were unable to do even simple things like feed themselves, and large numbers of people died because of it. Here in the West, the ideology of constant change has to do with selling things. Fads and fashions. In the process, all sorts of bad stuff and waste come and go. Worst of all, there's a sort of addiction to the quick fix rather than real solutions. They create for themselves great effort and even harm in their rush to discard the old, simply to reinvent it. See my post about the Space Shuttle in a different thread. 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. It *is* efficient, Mike! It's very efficient at turning HF RF energy into heat. I've seen better! ;^) Not much better! Don't expect it from "John Smith", Len, "b.b.", or even "an old friend". You won't get it. That's really what it comes down to. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: No sense in attempting to efficiently send data anywhere, unless methods are used which employ efficient data compaction and the use of CRC checksums... it is only there that HS data transmission comes alive... Encryption is good also, unless you want the whole world to know what you are sending... John Uhhh . . John you hopeless noclue check out what Part 97 has to say about hams encrypting their transmissions. w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com