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 -

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

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!

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?

This approach has been in evidence early on.
Facts are of secondary importance to opinion.

To some folks, their opinions *are* facts.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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!

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.

For example, if you're allowed to use wide-enough bandwidths,
all sorts of stuff is possible.

If you're allowed to use very high power and high gain antennas,
all sorts of stuff is possible.

If you can separate the transmit and receive sites and/or frequencies
so that full duplex is achieved, all sorts of
things are possible.

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.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

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]

The ARRL isn't interested in change from within, either. I've been a
disenfranchised member for 18 years.

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.

Yep, they represent me.

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


Shoes or used cars?

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


You purport to be an active radio amateur
and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there
are in the United States? Do
you think the FCC and ARRL are in
collusion and they've whipped up
some massive coverup of the number
of licensees? Sheesh!


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.


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.....


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.

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???


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^)


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


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.

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

If you're allowed to use very high power and high gain antennas,
all sorts of stuff is possible.

A strong signal mode? 8^)

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!

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!

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!

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:

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...


How else am I gonna get my "Worked All Hams" award, then?

:-)

Robert:

HUH? attempting-to-keep-a-straight-face

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 02:55:23 +0000, robert casey wrote:

John Smith wrote:

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...


How else am I gonna get my "Worked All Hams" award, then?

:-)

an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:

There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't
work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams
to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time.


agreed there are reasons of course as there were then

but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should
not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done

So, according to your view, it is quite possible that you *could* pass a
morse test.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:

There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't
work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams
to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time.


agreed there are reasons of course as there were then

but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should
not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done

So, according to your view, it is quite possible that you *could* pass a
morse test.

Of course I could If write enough stuff in response to enough tests I
am certain I could indeed pass, assuming of course I live that long

OTOH I more likely to get a kind word from Stevie on my spelling or
even my honesty


Dave K8MN