|
Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for invisible facts. - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M when was that Jim 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^) Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Try to keep in the forefront of your mind that everyday which goes by sees another of the 60+ year olds dominating HF, suffer a stroke, succumb to alzheimers, suffer massive a heart attack, etc, etc... indeed, a quick scan and monitor of the bands discloses much, too much chit-chat on the medical element which is plaguing them... The next five years are GOING to be devastating on this groups numbers... You only need logic to read those tea leaves... John On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:32:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Anyone with a computer can grab the statistics off the FCC and arrl sites, who is left which trusts them, if you, don't include me. I trust them and you are excluded. I know much about the FCC and the ARRL. I don't know a thing about you, nor would I trust you. No, I was born at different time, when you got real data, real numbers, real people to stand behind it, I understand the youngsters might be confused by all this, but all us old timers have a real past when everything was different. We have a bit more "history" to go by.... If you told the truth in stating your age, I'm about a year older. So you weren't born at a differeent time. I'm still getting real data and real numbers. I have no reason to doubt the numbers. Each radio amateur has a published name and address. If you'd like to randomly sample for accuracy, start writing to a number of them. I guess you can just chuck me into the "conspiracy nuts" group... I'd already done so. I don't trust the figure, politicians, and news anymore... That probably accounts for the pseudonym. if I have to appoligize for it, so be it... but don't consider it a half-felt one... A man should never have to apologize for being a conspiracy nut. It marks him as a rugged individualist. Frankly, I like progress, don't much care for liars and "spin doctors." If you don't pay attention to figures, politicians and the news, how do you know we're making progress? Dave K8MN On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:26 +0000, 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! Dave Heil |
b.b.:
These guys and gals are telling a lot of people a lot of stuff, the important thing is how many are deceived into believing... John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:04:52 -0700, b.b. wrote: John Smith wrote: b.b.: Trust me, the internet gets through when CW will not... John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:24:09 -0700, b.b. wrote: wrote: From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License, that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi! It's always been a barrier. True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal radio regulations about amateur radio. Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be a bit too much to hope for... too for If code testing is good for people who just want to use voice modes, it must be doubly good for those who want to use CW. CW gets through when everything else does. But, but, but... You'll get told that the internet is as unreliable as cellular telephones. |
From: John Smith on Aug 6, 3:36 pm
b.b.: Trust me, the internet gets through when CW will not... Yes, yes, John, it is useful for arranging skeds, holding rag-chews, but the Internet NEEDS a personal computer! All the Mighty Macho Morsemen know the "computer" is evil, high-tech bafflegab, and THREATENS the Wetware modems now "in the service of the nation" helping Homeland Security against wily terrorists out to destroy their 1930s fantasy of hamme raddio and morsemanship. Ahem..."CW gets through when nothing else will" is a hoary old maxim (probably originating in Newington) that has been around since the 1930s...back at a time when Claude Shannon had not shown the radio world his marvelous Law relating bandwidth, noise, error rate, and information throughput...back at a time when there were only two modes in most of ham radio: CW and old-fashioned AM voice. That "morse myth" has been engraved on the concrete minds of hams seemingly forever. At one time in here there was a pandemic epidemic of that hoary hairy old morse myth over-quoted in here by the MMMs of the deus ex machina mindset. Never mind the Latter-Day Saints of Technology trying out PSK or 2 KHz BW SSB or fooling with digitized voice, they, the Faithful Followers of the Church of St. Hiram HAD to write that ad nauseum. Brian put that hairy old hoar's breath into a TRUE statement: "CW gets through when everything else does." It is suprebly TRUE and without blemish. End newsgroup history lesson. awl end |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... John Smith wrote: Dee: Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the 70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse than imagined in my worst nightmare! It's a nice story. It is a pity that t'ain't true. I've run pileups spanning five to seven KHz for as long as six hours at a time, working 200-300 CW QSOs per hour. That happened as recently as 2000. DXing and contesting aren't games about twenty and thirty years ago, they're about what you've done lately. Contest scores have gotten bigger. The top scorers work more stations than were worked two or three decades ago. There are domestic scores now which top the world high scores of that many years ago. Dave K8MN Well I can attest to the fact that it takes some real finesse and staying power to snag the rare DX when you are only running 100 watts into a G5RV. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: A useful figure here would be the percentage of hams who contest... Dee seems to think all 600,000 (and yes, I don't think that figure is even close to correct) do... John I have never implied that such a thing is true or that I think it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Darn girl, you caught me exaggerating! Again! grin John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: A useful figure here would be the percentage of hams who contest... Dee seems to think all 600,000 (and yes, I don't think that figure is even close to correct) do... John I have never implied that such a thing is true or that I think it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for invisible facts. - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time. 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? 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. 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 th e real world? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for invisible facts. - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave propagation phenomena. really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time. agreed there are reasons of course as there were then but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done I choose to look at a thorny problem and try to see if I can make lemonaide, maybe brew those throns in a decent cup of Tea Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that knowledge. Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data transmission? in sprict order asking I don't know, don't know, difering weather conidctions, and becuase comercail needs relaiblity where we hams are free to spend on trying stuff when was that Jim A long, long time ago. When almost nothing was known about propagation. and if folks had listene to experts of the day what would we have today 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. 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 th e real world? - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com