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?

- 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.

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^)

Mike:

As usual, you got everything backwards... digital is not analog, end of
story.

The modem on the mic just points out hams are too lazy, or two limited to
even be able to kludge a simple digital project together, when the parts
are just laying around. Hell, you have to use such stuff, real digital
equip is few are far between and there are so few hams the call for such
equip is almost non-existant, and that is sure not much motivation for
manufacturers to build any!

Your arguments are lame, you are confused, you are just ****ed that some
real numbers are going to come to amateur radio. You know the old brass
pounders are going to be setting out there chatting with the fewer and
fewer of themselves which survive each and every new coming year, time is
their enemy and the hope of progress...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:47:57 -0400, 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?

- 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.

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^)

From: John Smith on Sat 6 Aug 2005 10:13

Mike:

As usual, you got everything backwards... digital is not analog, end of
story.

Easy do, John, the Coslonaut is "reaching for the edge of space!"

The modem on the mic just points out hams are too lazy, or two limited to
even be able to kludge a simple digital project together, when the parts
are just laying around. Hell, you have to use such stuff, real digital
equip is few are far between and there are so few hams the call for such
equip is almost non-existant, and that is sure not much motivation for
manufacturers to build any!

Witness the comments on a previous thread about the "Sienna,"
a new HF transceiver built around a PC-on-a-card. It is not
"real radio" to some of these MMMs so they decry it. However,
this small DZ outfit chose to remove its first kit from its
product line called the "PSKUBE." That one was essentially a
PC with built-in LCD screen display and detachable keyboard
designed expressly to work with PSK31 or any other common
TTY format...full HF receiver and QRP (sorta) transmitter.
Apparently the demand for the PSKUBE was so low that it would
not have been profitable for DZ to continue marketing it.

Your arguments are lame, you are confused, you are just ****ed that some
real numbers are going to come to amateur radio. You know the old brass
pounders are going to be setting out there chatting with the fewer and
fewer of themselves which survive each and every new coming year, time is
their enemy and the hope of progress...

Coslo seems to have but one aim: Winning points in message
exchanges. Doesn't matter what the subject matter is, he
will swing either way to win a round. shrug

win non

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.

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 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

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 -

an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo 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

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

Yep, that is what I figured.

- Mike KB3EIA - -

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