|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... 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. and you WANT the US to keep such company Absolutely I want us to keep such company. Hows the old saying go? Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. It the other way around, Dan: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. But otherwise you are spot-on. Ideologies aside, there is one big difference between their country and ours. During WWII, they were brought to the brink of existence, and survival was not at all certain. That has perhaps changed their outlook on communications in extremis. Here, we "know" that in emergencies that we will use cell phones and the Internet, and all will be well. For some reason or other, they think that perhaps a time will come when technology can fail. Then whatchya got? - Mike KB3EIA - Naw, I like it my way...hi. That is my point Mike. Just because it is old....does not make it useless. I believe in the KISS method. And CW, in emergencies, is the easiest and simplest thing to get running. No modems, no regulated power supplies, no computers. Just the basic stuff. I was asked once by my Battalion commander while in the field in Germany. ( I was talking to the Feldburg 2m ham repeater while standing on top of the Command track). He asked how I could communicate with Frankfurt, and all of his radios could not......I said...."Well Sir, it takes two things to communicate.....an operator on both ends" He ordered me to take my H/T every time we went to the field from then on. Dan/W4NTI |
I still like it my way.
Dan/W4NTI "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... 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. and you WANT the US to keep such company Absolutely I want us to keep such company. Hows the old saying go? Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. Dan/W4NTI Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
robert casey wrote:
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... Isn't that what a lot of the newsgroup is doing now? hehe 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. Kee-rect! Now I wonder why they don't put them at some other frequency, such as HF? Isn't there a HF segment somewhere around 27 MHz or so where they used to have cordless phones? Why not use that? I don't think there are any phones there now. Then let us modulate say a 1.8 MHz signal with say a 30 MHz signal. Aww heck. Why don't we use a quarter wave dipole for the antenna on this beast! ;^) 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? - Mike KB3EIA - |
robert casey wrote:
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...) NO linear needed! 5 Watts can do it. 100 watts is more than enough. The very most interesting thing about BPL is that what goes on the power lines is only the very last leg of the system. Power lines are not particularly good at carrying digital signals. The signal gets mushed up, and it won't survive the trip though the pole transformers. So they carry the signal through the higher voltage lines, put a box that pops the BPL signal onto the low voltage side of the transformer, then that is what goes into your house. But the big kicker is this. Since the digital signal has a lot of trouble surviving the trip on the power lines, fiber is run to the point where a tap is made to the HV-lines. It's a last block sort of thing. So unless you are on the end of the line, you will probably have a nice high-speed fiber going right past your place in a BPL scheme. THAT'S the signal I want Fiber! Not a stinking, degraded, vulnerable, spectrum polluting BPL signal. I want Fiber - lots of fiber in my diet! Besides, fiber is good for you! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len:
Thanks for the background info... I have already written dave off as just another "yes man" to the status quo... he is a heckler here and his chief method of operation is character assassinations... rather than attack and debate ideas, he attacks posters... hey, the world is composed of all types, in the end it all works... John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:28:34 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: 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 |
Conspiracy or just bad methods of record keeping?
.... in the end the reason is not as important as facts, and one fact is--dead hams are on the books... But damn it all and get real, the USA population is 350,000,000+, if just one percent of that population were hams, you would need 3.5 millons hams... .... the figure 600,000 is too ridiculous to even argue as meaningful, stop eating lotus flowers, wake up! John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:24:49 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: 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 - |
N2EY:
.... any way you cut it, when you end all the obfuscation, BS and mindless chatter to divert thought, probably less that .015% of the population are licensed amateurs--that isn't insanity, that is a crime! Something is obviously wrong and yet you think you can argue insanely that this is good, fine and dandy and nothing is wrong--do you really think people that stupid? Only a hermit or recluse could be so blind... John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:42:41 -0700, N2EY wrote: 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 |
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Of course the patience of Job will be needed for all the error correction needed Slow...error prone...not used by other services... Where'd I hear that before? ;^) 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 - 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. Telephone line modems make use of the predictable stability and characteristics of the telephone lines. HF radio is a bit less stable. 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. 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" 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. Don't expect it from "John Smith", Len, "b.b.", or even "an old friend". You won't get it. And I'm starting to think that some of them might be duplicates anyhow. Quitefine and Darkguard (nee Blackguard) indeed! Doesn't matter - they have nothing practical to offer. They're not about actually *doing* ham radio, just arguing about it. Too bad they cant do a better job. Indeed 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Text, with data compaction, is about a 10:1 compaction ratio (I usually average a 12:1 over a broad time period), that translates into sending one word for every 10, or 10X the speed of sending the data un-compacted. John On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:02:10 -0700, N2EY 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: Of course the patience of Job will be needed for all the error correction needed Slow...error prone...not used by other services... Where'd I hear that before? ;^) 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 - 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. Telephone line modems make use of the predictable stability and characteristics of the telephone lines. HF radio is a bit less stable. 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. 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" 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. Don't expect it from "John Smith", Len, "b.b.", or even "an old friend". You won't get it. And I'm starting to think that some of them might be duplicates anyhow. Quitefine and Darkguard (nee Blackguard) indeed! Doesn't matter - they have nothing practical to offer. They're not about actually *doing* ham radio, just arguing about it. Too bad they cant do a better job. Indeed 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 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 |
Dave:
I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real", "anonymous posters are NOT to be given credence!", "It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!", etc... yawn 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 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 |
From: "an_old_friend" on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:56
wrote: From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:27 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. Sorry to butt in, but a bit confused here from the only famialr with AM voice sidebands ad the talk of phasing sidebands are you refering to a compatable system (that is can the brute force filtered SSb uint talk to the phasing unit or are you discuing to different and Incompatable systems (obviosuly if they were incompatable inerta is decent reason to keep one over the other, after it has kept morse in place a LOT longer) Both SSB modulate-demodulate systems are compatible. Each produces a SINGLE AM sideband. In the Phasing system one needs two balanced mixers and a 0 degree and 90 degree relative phase shift (commonly called 'quadrature') of BOTH the audio AND the RF carrier. The two balanced mixer outputs are then algebraically summed for the result. The reason it works has to do with the relative RF phases of the conventional AM sideband products. The upper sideband components are differnt from the lower sideband components even though the sideband magnitudes (and frequencies) are the same. I could show how mathematically but this medium doesn't show equations well and John Carson's formula is rather long. The trick is to get a wideband audio phase shift network that retains the quadrature (90 degree) difference all across the desired audio bandwidth. The RF carrier can do that but the percentage bandwidth is small so the RF quadrature is relatively easy to do in hardware. The audio network is not easy to do. It is the SELECTION of audio phase and carrier phase into the mixers that determines whether or not an upper or lower sideband is desired. The amount of rejection of the unwanted sideband depends on the tolerance of holding the relative phase shifts as close as possible to 90 degrees. The "suppressed carrier" part of SSB is by virtue of the mixers balancing out the RF carrier in their output. The Gingell Polyphase Network takes 0 and 180 degree audio in and produces four audio outputs, each in quadrature with their adjacent output. The tolerance of exact quadrature is so good one can use ordinary 5% tolerance resistors and capacitors (relatively inexpensive) without matching them in pairs/quads. Much better than half-century old tube technique passive networks which required 1% or better R and C and always had a finite relative phase error. I migt as well learn something, and I am not afraid to admit the limits of my knowledge that is of course the first step in increasing it Absolutely. [few extras in here admit to gaps in knowledge since they are Morsemen who don't need theory] There's considerable data on phasing SSB generation-demodulation in older textbooks and some on the Internet. A search on "Phasing SSB" will turn up some interesting homebrewed-designed phasing generators and a few complete transceivers. My former boss and still my friend, Jim Hall, KD6JG, pointed me to a very interesting circuit in the RSGB magazine Radio Communication back in the early 70s. Jim did some early work on "third method of SSB" that is referenced in the "Collins SSB book" (familiar name) by Pappenfus, Bruene, and Schoenike then with Collins Radio. I snitched a bit of mainframe time and did a circuit analysis of it that got mentioned in Pat Hawker's column in Radio Communication a few months after Peter Martinez' circuit/experiments were featured. [the same G3PLX that would go on to innovate PSK31 much later] For others who were in early radar work, particularly avionics weapons systems, "phasing systems" are the key ingredient to "monopulse radars" that can determine elevation and azimuth from a radar antenna boresight line without physical movement of the antenna. Those started showing up in the 1950s. The "phase shift networks" at microwaves (X and K bands) are quite a bit diffeent than R-C ones at audio! :-) yee haw |
From: Mike Coslo on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:36
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: 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?...) Geez, Coslo, you still don't know dink about BPL. Neither does Heil apparently but then He can't be told anything... The DATA signals carried on electric power lines are, effectively, SIDEBAND components of a digital signal. Big wiiiiiide sideband spectral content. [I have to simplify it in order to teach you children sometimes] None of the systems have lil teeny individual "HF channels" for subscribers. It is similar to, but not the same as, the digital data stream coming down a cable TV system. Seems like if it is HF already, we shouldn't have to use them. You "shouldn't" or "should?" Be clear in your statements. You CAN use them if your receiver bandwidth is as wide as from 3 MHz to 80 MHz...AND you have the digital decoder... AND you have the subscriber unlock code. 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? It will work as well as that aluminum foil hat you wear to keep space aliens from reading your thoughts. Maybe it is a conspiracy to sell electronic parts? No, books...like "Broadband Techniques For Dummies and Simple-Minded Stupid Extras." NSA DES |
wrote:
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 Godwin invoked, Windy. ...stormed in here making like the Authoritative Elmer of all Elmers, spouting off about "CW" is way so much better than RTTY... Ooops! There's your first falsehood, Mr. Carbon Obnoxide. ...and illustrating that with his saving-the-day actions from... There's your second falsehood. ...Guinea-Bisseau in Africa for the Department of State, his employer at the time (in the "foreign service"). It is "Foreign Service", Leonard. That was in the 1980s. The time frame was late 1987 through late 1989. He was then, as he is now, an Ultimate Authority on HF... That's your third falsehood. I've never claimed such. ...from his many many years as a ham (probably working a minimum of 8 hours a day on his ham job)... You are actually quite close to the truth in this statement. If you count weekends, there are many weeks when I put in more hours at amateur radio than I did at work, even if we include typical overtime. Did you have a point to make? Are you jealous? Are you perplexed? Have you a problem with how I spent my own time? and waded into the morse code testing arguments as Mister Morseman (a "foreign service" counterpart to "Captain Code"). That makes falsehood number four. I've never posted as, nor signed any posts as "Mister Morseman" or any similar moniker. 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 can understand your unfamiliarity with the country. Why not admit that you are unfamiliar with just about any African country? I stated that and Heil got very angry. There's falsehood number five. [he was a "key employee" or something at State as a "communications officer"...blah blah blah] Oh, that part came much, much later, Leonard. You actually made a statement saying that I was never a key employee at any embassy. I produced urls for several years of the U.S. Department of State's "Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts" listings. My name and job title appeared in each. You quickly dismissed the lists as some sort of a telephone listing (even though telephone numbers did not appear with the names listed). You ate large quantities of crow. 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). Here we have your falsehood number six. I was not even ****ed, much less "****ed and a half". You vastly overestimate your ability to motivate. I wrote nothing about CW saving the day. Heil tried to make the argument that "CW" was "necessary" and all that old snit. The use of CW was necessary and mandated. Heil stated that "my station" (taxpayer owned, actually) "NEVER WORKED 24/7!" There's your seventh falsehood. I stated that *you*, Leonard H. Anderson, never worked 24/7. You'd claimed that you had. 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. Bully for you, Leonard! Bully! 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. TTY is "self-synchronizable" (did you mean synchronizing?) but schedules are not. 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. One may issue orders and make demands. Propagation doesn't seem bound to comply. Heil got most disturbed on my descriptions of the Army net being BIGGER than what State had (it was) and said... Wrong! That's falsehood number eight. I never cared what the Army net had and did not dispute its size. "I didn't know anything about what State's radio had/did." ....and the fact is that you didn't and don't know anything about the Department of State's communications methods or abilities. 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). None of those were any longer used at State by the mid-1980s. Heil did not realize that some of the Department of State messages were actually carried on Army and Air Force communications circuits... None of the Department of State's record traffic is carried by either Army or Air Force circuits. ...more in Europe than in Asia. None in Europe or 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] Before 1980? Why don't you just do another recounting of your RTTY experience at ADA in the early 1950's? Heil engages in a lot of Gamesmanship in here, frequently citing his many State assignments (Finland, several countries in Africa). Frequently? Not at all, Leonard. Your retellings of your single ADA experience in Japan have to outnumber any postings I've made about State Department postings by six or eight to one. Those experiences of yours date back more than a half century. He WAS DX to a lot of other hams, courtesy of the U.S. government... Courtesy of the U.S. government? Excuse me, that's your ninth falsehood. The U.S. government did not purchase any of my radio equipment, make any amateur radio QSOs or subsidize my time spent on the air as a radio amateur. and complementary callsigns given to "diplomatic" personnel of the USA. Your tenth falsehood appears above. I paid the going license fee at each post and requested a license under reciprocal agreements the host country had with the United States. No special agreements exist for those in diplomatic status. 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." Nobody retires from State's "radio". Those in communications were "Support Communications Officers", now "Information Mangagement Specialists". They handle not only HF radio circuits, but satellite and leased-line circuits. They are responsible for stand-alone PCs, unclassified and classified LAN's, embassy telephones, HF E&E radios, post VHF/UHF repeaters, handheld and mobile radios, secure telephones, and classified pouch. They also supervise the embassy receptionists and the mailroom staff. Those with HF radio expertise, listed as "CPO (Communications Programs Officer) or IPO (Information Programs Officer)-Radio" are an even tinier percentage of all of the Department of State's communications/information management employees. The more vocal hams with previous military radio experience seem to come from the USN and those mostly from ship "radio room" assignments. The more vocal? Are the folks with Army, Marine, Air Force and Coast Guard experience just quieter by nature? 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" knows that his Department of State experience is rare and there's no posing is necessary. You made a statement about government not using Morse. I corrected you. I knew something which was unknown to you. Deal with it. 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. "Heil" has shown numerous "signs". "Heil" was in the U.S. Air Force for four years and worked as a radio operator. "Heil" served in Vietnam as a U.S. Air Force radio operator. Heil wasn't some maintenance type, leaning on an equipment rack. He knows little and all he can do is the BS implication that he does. You really should write that it is your guess that I know little and that it is your guess that "all he can do..." There are quite a number of regular posters here whose time as professional communications types exceeds your own by several magnitudes. If you add their amateur radio experience, you're left in the dust. Deal with it. A shock to Heil must have been my appearance in here, an unlicensed-in-amateur-radio person who is no shrinking violet on opinions! Not exactly, Len. What shocked me was your pompous and condescending manner toward radio amateurs. You're right about your not being a shrinking violet on opinions. You have one whether you know what you're talking about or not. If no one pays attention to them, you restate them time after time in hopes of being noticed. Well, you've been noticed. You're still on the sidelines of amateur radio. 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] Just what is this documentary proof supposed to be, Leonard--that you were somewhere in uniform in the early 1950's? I've never denied that. I just don't know why I'm supposed to be impressed and I don't know how it is supposed to relate to amateur radio. Perhaps he was disturbed that I didn't polish the boots of his surplus Wehrmacht costume from Western Casting? Could be. Godwin x 2. 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. You've pretty well described your own behavior. N2EY even did a finely-crafted profile of your likely response to any poster who disagrees with you. Would you like to see it again? 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. No, it isn't some kind of psywar weapon. It is plain fact and I've brought up up for nearly eight years. You aren't a participant in amateur radio, despite your boast of several years back that you were going for an "Extra right out of the box". Contrary to Fearless Leader's instruction-commands, I didn't get a ham license FIRST "to show an interest in radio." You didn't get into amateur radio first, last or in between. 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. I disagree. I don't care whether you obtain an amateur radio license at all. If you choose to sit on the sidelines for the few years you have remaining, it bothers me not. What I won't put up with, is your endless sniping. Dave K8MN |
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 hlink.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 |
Dave:
Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle... krist, no wonder your posts seems do dizzy! 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 thlink.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 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 rthlink.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 |
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 |
wrote: From: "an_old_friend" on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:56 wrote: From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:27 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. Sorry to butt in, but a bit confused here from the only famialr with AM voice sidebands ad the talk of phasing sidebands are you refering to a compatable system (that is can the brute force filtered SSb uint talk to the phasing unit or are you discuing to different and Incompatable systems (obviosuly if they were incompatable inerta is decent reason to keep one over the other, after it has kept morse in place a LOT longer) Both SSB modulate-demodulate systems are compatible. Each produces a SINGLE AM sideband. In the Phasing system one needs two balanced mixers and a 0 degree and 90 degree relative phase shift (commonly called 'quadrature') of BOTH the audio AND the RF carrier. The two balanced mixer outputs are then algebraically summed for the result. The reason it works has to do with the relative RF phases of the conventional AM sideband products. The upper sideband components are differnt from the lower sideband components even though the sideband magnitudes (and frequencies) are the same. I could show how mathematically but this medium doesn't show equations well and John Carson's formula is rather long. indeed it does not do equations well but I have seen most of it back in college, pity my Physics prof never mentioned use SSB as a tranmission medium his lecture would have gotten my attention beter, but by then I was more interested in Plate Techtonics and what my geology profs was going on about and the graphical analys made more sense anyway The trick is to get a wideband audio phase shift network that retains the quadrature (90 degree) difference all across the desired audio bandwidth. The RF carrier can do that but the percentage bandwidth is small so the RF quadrature is relatively easy to do in hardware. The audio network is not easy to do. It is the SELECTION of audio phase and carrier phase into the mixers that determines whether or not an upper or lower sideband is desired. The amount of rejection of the unwanted sideband depends on the tolerance of holding the relative phase shifts as close as possible to 90 degrees. The "suppressed carrier" part of SSB is by virtue of the mixers balancing out the RF carrier in their output. The Gingell Polyphase Network takes 0 and 180 degree audio in and produces four audio outputs, each in quadrature with their adjacent output. The tolerance of exact quadrature is so good one can use ordinary 5% tolerance resistors and capacitors (relatively inexpensive) without matching them in pairs/quads. Much better than half-century old tube technique passive networks which required 1% or better R and C and always had a finite relative phase error. I migt as well learn something, and I am not afraid to admit the limits of my knowledge that is of course the first step in increasing it Absolutely. [few extras in here admit to gaps in knowledge since they are Morsemen who don't need theory] There's considerable data on phasing SSB generation-demodulation in older textbooks and some on the Internet. A search on "Phasing SSB" will turn up some interesting homebrewed-designed phasing generators and a few complete transceivers. My former boss and still my friend, Jim Hall, KD6JG, pointed me to a very interesting circuit in the RSGB magazine Radio Communication back in the early 70s. Jim did some early work on "third method of SSB" that is referenced in the "Collins SSB book" (familiar name) by Pappenfus, Bruene, and Schoenike then with Collins Radio. I snitched a bit of mainframe time and did a circuit analysis of it that got mentioned in Pat Hawker's column in Radio Communication a few months after Peter Martinez' circuit/experiments were featured. [the same G3PLX that would go on to innovate PSK31 much later] For others who were in early radar work, particularly avionics weapons systems, "phasing systems" are the key ingredient to "monopulse radars" that can determine elevation and azimuth from a radar antenna boresight line without physical movement of the antenna. Those started showing up in the 1950s. The "phase shift networks" at microwaves (X and K bands) are quite a bit diffeent than R-C ones at audio! :-) yee haw |
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 |
Kelly:
There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:38:13 -0700, kelly wrote: 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 |
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Well I dunno about that Mike, jeez, lookit all the leading-edge "solutions" Sweetums has dumped in here over the years . . . Are puns solutions? For him you bet. I do enjoy those. Imagine if that intellect were used for good....... ;^) That's what millions asked about Dr. Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber. 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? Wow! 10 db? I knew it was superior. I didn't know it was that much superior. Yup. Same net effect as adding an amp. Go to 20 or 40 and tune an ssb signal which peaks at S4 on ye olde S-meter. Then spin the knob counterclockwise and find a CW signal which also peaks at S4, crank in the CW filter and ponder the difference in intelligibilities. The 'ole power density thing at work. But I am firmly convinced that OOK CW coupled with the processing power of "wetware", is the bottom line of getting the message through. You're there. Now the worst conditions won't happen every time of course, but they will happen some times. Huge variable there Mike. The inherent gain of CW is a very big deal in weak signal work. But if if an op's jollies come from being able to kick his feet up on the desk and yak his buddies with his RX RF gain at half mast then S/N ratios, whizzy front end dynamic ranges and path gains are irrelevant. Depends on what the particular op is into. RF gain knobs . . yessss . . "just in case" lemmee clue you about an HF dxers dirty little secret: The band is hot, big signals everywhere, yer ears are getting pounded and ya can't quite copy the new one in the muck. You have a big rig with DSP and hardware filters out the wazoo and a gazzilion buttons and knobs on the panel. Been there I dunno how many times. Took awhile for me to finally get the message many years ago but my best buddy in these situations is the lowly and usually ignored RF gain pot. 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". Who in the hell (PMF) said THAT???? Heh . . . ! Operator skills are intrinsically a part of Amateur radio policy. Otherwise why do we have people who are trying to remove operator skills from the equation? Bwaaaaahaha! - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
John Smith wrote: Kelly: There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Typical freebanders mindset. Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you have a ham license of course. Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy? John w3rv |
Kelly:
"Freebander mentality?" Hmmm, I have always taken keen interest in the unique, rare, unknown and unconventional. But, I imagine you might just be correct, and maybe I got all those traffic tickets, when I was younger, because of a "freebander mentality" (or, freethinker mentality--might have just been because of the foolishness of youth!) I am just wondering if I will have to consult a shrink or Sylvia Browne if I have to seek professional help on "freebander mentality?" Unless I am gravely mistaken, there are others running compaction/encryption out there (I don't know what to do with those digital packets, I can't read them, by any algorithms I know!), must have the "radio police" on a constant run. Or, maybe they are going to get the "compacting encrypters" just after they finish rounding up all the illegal cb'ers and freebanders--if so, probably have at least another month before anyone has to worry. Actually, you may not hear it that often, I suspect mainly because it must be all homebrew equip and helps to know a programming language, and ability to read schematics and run a soldering iron. But, it is there. Of course you can find it on the Ghz's--but it is not all that rare on VHF. Don't believe I have ever heard it on HF... could have a lot to do with ages you find on those freqs too... Like I say, I think that law looks a bit ridiculous at this day and age... but then, in some areas there is a lot of that going around, ridiculous chit. John On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:59:39 -0700, kelly wrote: John Smith wrote: Kelly: There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by american citizens" that I am aware of... It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to stop.) Typical freebanders mindset. Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is not a "crime.") I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is... Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you have a ham license of course. Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods. Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive, evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today... This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for themselves, they can act as they so choose... Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy? John w3rv |
o
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. I'm using one of those lines here. A few years ago it was originally a DSL line Ma Bell set up as a second line for Eric. Then he bailed away from his DSL service and moved to Comcast thus I inherited Ma Bell's former DSL line for my dialup connection. As dailup connections go the thing screams. His cable TV connection is only 2-3 times faster than my dialup connection but no more than that. He's paying something like $50/month for his cable connection and I'm only paying $15/month. AND my dialup connection is more reliable. 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. Gotta love it. And they're *everywhere*. Hot air is free. Brains, innovation and bench time are not free. End of. Like all the bafflegab and excitement about DSP, SDR's, etc. Poke around under the hood of any of the modern top-end ham xcvrs and you'll find that their hot performance is directly dependent on their cascaded xtal filters. Jumper the filters and put it all on their "firmware". HA! As if. Xtal filters being at least seventy-year-old technology and all that. 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. Exactly. 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. Eeeek! Yo, An HF RX with 0.05 =B5V sensitivity?! Not many of those around! 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. I've done that and gotten some weird results. I get non-weird results by A-B testing between the antenna and a dummy load instead. Impedance matching issue.=20 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
wrote:
o wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. I'm using one of those lines here. A few years ago it was originally a DSL line Ma Bell set up as a second line for Eric. Then he bailed away from his DSL service and moved to Comcast thus I inherited Ma Bell's former DSL line for my dialup connection. As dailup connections go the thing screams. His cable TV connection is only 2-3 times faster than my dialup connection but no more than that. He's paying something like $50/month for his cable connection and I'm only paying $15/month. AND my dialup connection is more reliable. There ya go! The big draw of DSL, besides the speed, is that you can use the voice 'phone and the DSL at the same time over a single pair. The monthly cost of two lines is often comparable to the cost of one line plus DSL. 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. Gotta love it. And they're *everywhere*. Yup. Hot air is free. Brains, innovation and bench time are not free. End of. What matters is what gets built and used. Like all the bafflegab and excitement about DSP, SDR's, etc. Poke around under the hood of any of the modern top-end ham xcvrs and you'll find that their hot performance is directly dependent on their cascaded xtal filters. Jumper the filters and put it all on their "firmware". HA! As if. Xtal filters being at least seventy-year-old technology and all that. Xtal filters in ham receivers and noise blankers can be traced to the same guy: Jim Lamb, at ARRL Hq. Mid 1930s. 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 qui= et 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. Exactly. 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. Eeeek! Yo, An HF RX with 0.05 =B5V sensitivity?! Not many of those around! Because there's no point to building one! Somebody put an HBR-16 through its paces and it bettered 0.5 uV sensitivity on 80/40/20. That's not .05 uV but the point is the same: There's a limit to how much sensitivity is usable on HF, with typical HF antennas. As you go up in frequency, that situation changes. 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. I've done that and gotten some weird results. I get non-weird results by A-B testing between the antenna and a dummy load instead. Impedance matching issue. That's the more-correct way to do it, but the point is the same: If the noise coming in from the antenna exceeds the noise generated by the rx, you've already got all the sensitivity you can use with that setup. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
That doesn't make any sense, you text. I am suspecting you mean the total cost of DSL is roughly equivalent to phone + dialup? I am not being picky, I knew what you meant right off, just to clarify for those few which might not... John On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:10:53 -0700, N2EY wrote: wrote: o wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. I'm using one of those lines here. A few years ago it was originally a DSL line Ma Bell set up as a second line for Eric. Then he bailed away from his DSL service and moved to Comcast thus I inherited Ma Bell's former DSL line for my dialup connection. As dailup connections go the thing screams. His cable TV connection is only 2-3 times faster than my dialup connection but no more than that. He's paying something like $50/month for his cable connection and I'm only paying $15/month. AND my dialup connection is more reliable. There ya go! The big draw of DSL, besides the speed, is that you can use the voice 'phone and the DSL at the same time over a single pair. The monthly cost of two lines is often comparable to the cost of one line plus DSL. 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. Gotta love it. And they're *everywhere*. Yup. Hot air is free. Brains, innovation and bench time are not free. End of. What matters is what gets built and used. Like all the bafflegab and excitement about DSP, SDR's, etc. Poke around under the hood of any of the modern top-end ham xcvrs and you'll find that their hot performance is directly dependent on their cascaded xtal filters. Jumper the filters and put it all on their "firmware". HA! As if. Xtal filters being at least seventy-year-old technology and all that. Xtal filters in ham receivers and noise blankers can be traced to the same guy: Jim Lamb, at ARRL Hq. Mid 1930s. 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. Exactly. 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. Eeeek! Yo, An HF RX with 0.05 µV sensitivity?! Not many of those around! Because there's no point to building one! Somebody put an HBR-16 through its paces and it bettered 0.5 uV sensitivity on 80/40/20. That's not .05 uV but the point is the same: There's a limit to how much sensitivity is usable on HF, with typical HF antennas. As you go up in frequency, that situation changes. 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. I've done that and gotten some weird results. I get non-weird results by A-B testing between the antenna and a dummy load instead. Impedance matching issue. That's the more-correct way to do it, but the point is the same: If the noise coming in from the antenna exceeds the noise generated by the rx, you've already got all the sensitivity you can use with that setup. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote 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. You're joking, of course. You can't even get an approximate measure of your receiver sensitivity/noise floor from that test. Suppose, for example, that an active electrical storm is brewing and you're tuned to a 40M QRG. All but the most stone-deaf receivers will give you some room-filling background noise which will disappear when the antenna is removed. Beep beep 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K0HB:
Suppose the aliens are running their evil "Confabulator?" How would a guy ever know then? John On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:13:09 +0000, KØHB wrote: wrote 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. You're joking, of course. You can't even get an approximate measure of your receiver sensitivity/noise floor from that test. Suppose, for example, that an active electrical storm is brewing and you're tuned to a 40M QRG. All but the most stone-deaf receivers will give you some room-filling background noise which will disappear when the antenna is removed. Beep beep 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 7, 3:43 pm Len: I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds! We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in! Absolutely cannot be done unless "we" become MEMBERS and "work for change from the 'inside'." [repeated warnings from Dee Flint in here] Problem is, the entrenched officials and BoD are RESISTANT to "change from within" as evident from their regular BoD Meeting Minutes given on their websites. They do things THEIR way and expect all to fall-in and pop-to. After all, they "represent all amateurs in the USA" and say so up front. I'll have to check out the QST advertising page on the website, see if they have a new "Publisher's Sworn Statement" on their membership numbers. ARRL have never had more than a quarter of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs and, at the end of 2004, had only about 20 percent of them according to membership numbers they gave. However, in THIS newsgroup, all of the PCTA extras bow down and accept all League words as sacrosanct. After all, Hiram Went To Washington right after the end of WW1 and "saved ham radio" all by hisself. For that all are supposed to forever show gratitude and obediance to the ARRL, even 86 years after that "fact"! Something to consider: The present elected President of the ARRL was a former salesman. [see connection? :-) ] ant how You are as involved in the ARRL as you are in amateur radio--not at all. Dave K8MN Odd that you say that. Len frequently comments to the FCC when asked. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com