|
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 |
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. boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 So, according to your view, it is quite possible that you *could* pass a morse test. Of course I could If write enough stuff in response to enough tests I am certain I could indeed pass, assuming of course I live that long OTOH I more likely to get a kind word from Stevie on my spelling or even my honesty But you've told Jim that he wasn't reading when you said you'd simply tried everything, some of them a number of times and that you just couldn't pass a morse exam. Now you'd have us believe that it is possible for you to do so. You're making some improvement but it makes your previous statements sound a bit disingenuous. Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when he assumed a pen name. Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author has adopted a pen name? Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage name? Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name, and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?" Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept... 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! 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 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... 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 |
an_old_friend wrote:
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. boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals Colonel Morgan, "John Smith", so the jokes go, is a commonly used name by those checking into a hotel with a woman other than one's wife. I didn't mention "John Smith's" or anyone else's genitals. Dave K8MN |
John Smith wrote:
Robert: HUH? attempting-to-keep-a-straight-face John How else am I gonna get my "Worked All Hams" award, then? :-) To get the "Worked All Hams" award one has to work each and every licensed ham in the USA. All 600 thousand of them. Which means they all must be active... :-) |
Robert:
You may have to enlist Sylvia Brownes' help, I think (my belief, opinion) is that some of those hams still on the books have entered the "here after." Propagation into that area is rare at best, and most reports are highly questionable... Psychic communications is still in its' infancy, highly sporadic successes to this date, equipment is sparse... don't prepare a spot on the wall for that award, yet... grin John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:59:33 +0000, robert casey wrote: John Smith wrote: Robert: HUH? attempting-to-keep-a-straight-face John How else am I gonna get my "Worked All Hams" award, then? :-) To get the "Worked All Hams" award one has to work each and every licensed ham in the USA. All 600 thousand of them. Which means they all must be active... :-) |
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. And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer. Is that not allowed? It's allowed. It's also allowed that YOU *might* consider OTHER forms of communications on beloved HF other than what the holy Handbook says is "good." Quit acting petulant. The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible" Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be patient, very patient. Sorry, I've lost my patience with the brain-draggers in here only considering U.S. ham radio "high-tech" being some finished product advertised in QST and having a "lab review" on it all glowing with praise. There's an INFINITY of POSSIBILITIES that can be done in U.S. ham radio and about the ONLY innovation of late is the Tayloe Mixer (patent pending). Mike Gingell in the UK came up with the polyphase audio phase shifter for better phasing SSB and Peter Martinez, also in the UK, came up with PSK31. Once in a while some U.S. guys come out with an innovating product and all you "communications experts" all get together and carp it up, refuse to buy it, or say whatever each one of you has is "so much better" than anything new. Newness is to be feared? Go back in time to the late Dick Carroll complaining and grousing about his peripheral DSP audio filter...he said outright in here that he had difficulty setting the controls! Waaa...waaaa...if it ain't like it usta was in the 1950s and 1960s it ain't no good! Okay, so somebody INNOVATE something. INNOVATE something besides sitting around gabbling how "good" and "expert" you all are because you are morsemen and grand champions in radio because you are federally authorized for beeping. The rest of the radio world is NOT buying it. The rest of the radio world will continue to improve as it has been for years. The U.S. amateur radio world can only play copycat and steal from that, having the ARRL say that "hams invented it" when it didn't. Tayloe did it. What have the other 700K+ done? Sit around griping because none of you have done anything? non seq |
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 |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: 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. boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals Colonel Morgan, break "John Smith", so the jokes go, is a commonly used name by those checking into a hotel with a woman other than one's wife. I didn't mention "John Smith's" or anyone else's genitals. Now you refered instead to what he was doing with them so you are still obsessed with what other MEN are doing with their genitals I am of course well aware of the joke Dave K8MN |
|
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: 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. boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals Colonel Morgan, break "John Smith", so the jokes go, is a commonly used name by those checking into a hotel with a woman other than one's wife. I didn't mention "John Smith's" or anyone else's genitals. Now you refered instead to what he was doing with them That's incorrect. I wrote of where he was going with them. I wrote nothing at all about what he was doing with them and I did not refer to his, hers or the desk clerk's genitals. so you are still obsessed with what other MEN are doing with their genitals Are you still laboring under a misconception about which organs are included as genitals, Colonel? I am of course well aware of the joke From your response, that was not at all evident. Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Cut the BS. You don't like me. 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... 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... 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 |
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 |
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... John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:28 -0700, LenAnderson 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. And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer. Is that not allowed? It's allowed. It's also allowed that YOU *might* consider OTHER forms of communications on beloved HF other than what the holy Handbook says is "good." Quit acting petulant. The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible" Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be patient, very patient. Sorry, I've lost my patience with the brain-draggers in here only considering U.S. ham radio "high-tech" being some finished product advertised in QST and having a "lab review" on it all glowing with praise. There's an INFINITY of POSSIBILITIES that can be done in U.S. ham radio and about the ONLY innovation of late is the Tayloe Mixer (patent pending). Mike Gingell in the UK came up with the polyphase audio phase shifter for better phasing SSB and Peter Martinez, also in the UK, came up with PSK31. Once in a while some U.S. guys come out with an innovating product and all you "communications experts" all get together and carp it up, refuse to buy it, or say whatever each one of you has is "so much better" than anything new. Newness is to be feared? Go back in time to the late Dick Carroll complaining and grousing about his peripheral DSP audio filter...he said outright in here that he had difficulty setting the controls! Waaa...waaaa...if it ain't like it usta was in the 1950s and 1960s it ain't no good! Okay, so somebody INNOVATE something. INNOVATE something besides sitting around gabbling how "good" and "expert" you all are because you are morsemen and grand champions in radio because you are federally authorized for beeping. The rest of the radio world is NOT buying it. The rest of the radio world will continue to improve as it has been for years. The U.S. amateur radio world can only play copycat and steal from that, having the ARRL say that "hams invented it" when it didn't. Tayloe did it. What have the other 700K+ done? Sit around griping because none of you have done anything? non seq |
Dave:
I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything... nor do I care, your banter becomes taxing... 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... however, I have formed an opinion of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with... 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 |
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 |
Dave Heil wrote: 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. holes? hmmmm ah it is procoder thing we nocoders would not understand 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... break Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick dismissal. then show some MANNERS and thank the man Dave K8MN |
Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists, millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop nylon attached to us! There are over 600,000 hams in the US. How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams! John In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have any members at all. True, Dee. But there are a number of people hard at work to change that! - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
|
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? Is digital a sine wave? Dave, I'm soo confused! All this bandwidth stuff is such a crock. Dunno why I'm getting so worked up over it. Heck, Digital can be done on DC for all that matter! - 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 |
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 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com