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

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


an old friend wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:

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


agreed there are reasons of course as there were then

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

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


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

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

But you've told Jim that he wasn't reading when you said you'd simply
tried everything, some of them a number of times and that you just
couldn't pass a morse exam. Now you'd have us believe that it is
possible for you to do so. You're making some improvement but it makes
your previous statements sound a bit disingenuous.

Dave K8MN

an_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:



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


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

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go
along, so why do it?

It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for
invisible facts.



- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.


really? gee it falls into the same catagory as when it was said that we
ham had been banished to "useless frequencies" everything above 200M


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


agreed there are reasons of course as there were then

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

Where did I say that? Of course it can be done. Wireless digital at HF
is similar to wireless at UHF and above. You just have a few things at
HF that are different. Noise is one of the differences. bandwidth is
another. If you are willing to out up with very slow transmissions,
Digital at HF is doable. Won't be high speed though, and it won't work
terribly well.


I choose to look at a thorny problem and try to see if I can make
lemonaide, maybe brew those throns in a decent cup of Tea

Well have at it, Mark! Occasionally the naysayers are proven wrong. Jim
had a few ideas that might be of some use. They have some flaws though,
as in requireing high power, special transmitters and recievers, and
most still use too much bandwidth.

Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many
people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education
and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly
variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that
knowledge.

Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz
signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and
how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a
wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data
transmission?


in sprict order asking I don't know, don't know, difering weather
conidctions, and becuase comercail needs relaiblity where we hams are
free to spend on trying stuff


when was that Jim

A long, long time ago. When almost nothing was known about propagation.


and if folks had listene to experts of the day what would we have today

Experimentation proved them wrong. The experimentors then became the
new experts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am

an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:



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.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Shannon's Law is absolute, proven by experiment, embraced by all
the OTHER radio services. Shannon's Law is 58 years old and
mature, both de facto and de jure.

"Vagaries of wave propagation phenomena" [at HF due to ionospheric
changes] has been well-known to academia, the commercial and
government users of HF since the 1930s. The most well-known
(to non-amateur communications on HF) is "selective fading,"
a relatively short-duration change of BOTH amplitude and phase
over a relatively narrow band-span. In commercial SSB (using
12 KHz bandwidth format of four 3 KHz separate voice-grade
circuits) this was much reduced in its effect by simply
sending TWO tone-pair sets for each AFSK TTY circuit, the pair
separated by about 1 to 2 KHz; voting circuitry at the receive
end picked out the "best" received signal. That reduced at
least 95 percent of the error effects of selective fading.

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"
due to some (unquantified) "phase changes" has been thrashed
and discarded by at least two HF digital voice transmission
methods, one of which (DRM or Digital Radio Mondial) has been
in test for five years and is now heard over two dozen HF
broadcasts. DRM can carry binaural ("stereo") audio. The
bandwidth occupancy is NO GREATER than a conventional monoaural
AM transmission. The key to such untilization of a relatively
narrow bandwidth for higher throughput lies in examination of
the environment and using coding theory to fit that environment.

Will it send "high-quality" digital pictures in data mode?
YES, but at relatively slow transmission rates depending on
the bandwidth used/allowed/allocated. Shannon's Law is
irrefutable. It will NOT carry "live, feature-length
motion pictures." [that seems to be your goal but that goal
is not possible to attain] It can send high-density image
data without problem, with a minimum of error, but a cost
of waiting a relatively long time for each image.

There are OTHER forms of on-the-fly determination of "the
vagaries of propagation" [on HF]. The U.S. government has
been using a standardized method for about five years now
called Automatic Link Establishment or ALE. While perhaps
not adapatable to amateur radio HF applications, it is a
system for continuously monitoring signal quality, a scan
of other predetermined frequencies to check their quality,
and automatic changeover to whichever predetermined
frequency signal quality is best. ALE on HF has been
devised and tested expressly for HF beginning about two
decades ago.

Both of the above mainly-HF systems have been little
publicized in the amateur radio press. That is a fault of
the amateur radio publishers, not the system. It is NOT
the simplistic basic-level radio theory (and coding theory)
which can be easily digested in a single reading sit-down.
They require THINKING, "non-traditional" thinking away from
what had been theory of a half century ago and propagated
as "state-of-the-art" long after its first appearance.

On pushing throughput to much greater rates in relatively
narrow bandwidths, consider the advances in amateur radio
HF techniques over the last half century. In the 1950s the
"standard" RTTY frequency-shift was 850 Hz for 60 WPM
TTY 5-level coding. Today it is 170 Hz for 100 WPM 8-level
TTY coding. AM voice used to take at least 6 KHz bandwidth
but single-channel suppressed-carrier sideband cut that in
half plus reducing the old AM heterodynes from CW carriers.
PKS31 innovated and devised in the UK, tested in Europe,
was a 30 WPM RTTY system using a bandwidth no larger than
a conventional on-off keyed "CW" (morse code) signal. Those
are now "accepted" methods because the amateur radio press
has publicized it.

However, in OTHER areas, look at the common, ordinary PC
modem operating with Plain Old Telephone System (POTS)
lines of 3 KHz bandwidth. The data rate over the "56K"
modem is about NINETEEN TIMES FASTER than "straight"
analog AM. MILLIONS are used each day in the USA alone.
You don't look into the WHY of such a large increase in
throughput and I don't understand why you don't. The
answer lies in combinatorial modulation PLUS some rather
simple coding theory to increase the data bit rate to
a top of 56 THOUSAND bits per second. The modulation of
the modem's audio tone carrier is a combination of AM
and PM. It does NOT violate Shannon's Law. Such an
EQUIVALENT system could be applied to HF (it is in the
TORs or Teletype Over Radio outboard boxes) but that can
be incorporated into an HF transceiver as an integral
part. All of the radio amateurs, duly licensed as part
of the "nation's service" and complete with federally-
authorized call signs, seem to be satisfied with the LAZY
way out...let someone else do the innovation and design.
They won't "accept" it until the product ad appears in
QST ready for shipment, has reviews from the "ARRL Lab"
and all can argue over the ad specifications. Packaged
innovation ready to go. Done by OTHERS. Everything for
"the bands" (meaning only HF). "Standardized." :-(

I've brought up "scaling" of data rates before but that
seems to be a non-understanding topic. It isn't in a
convenient QST or CQ or QEX article so it isn't "accepted."
Yet SCALING is done (has been for decades) in antenna
testing as well as data rate. Look at high-definition
television broadcasting that is now phasing in to
consumers. The image throughput is more than doubled PLUS
extra data is sent for quadraphonic sound (not just "stereo")
and closed-captioning in a channel space NO LARGER than
(in the USA) 6 MHz. It's a three times REDUCTION in
bandwidth...PLUS more than double the amount of video
data. The secret is in the MPEG (Motion Picture Experts
Group) digitized video data coding and compression. Not
only that, the image/sound quality is very nearly FREE
of all the "propagation vagaries" due to phase and analog
changes from moving reflections, greater immunity to
random noise (such as from tools or appliances). SOMETHING
EQUIVALENT might be done for audio on HF...perhaps scaling
down the present-day SSB bandwidth of about 2.1 KHz to just
700 Hz or maybe 1 KHz...more than double the band
occupancy for voice signals and with much greater immunity
to "flutter" and selective fading effects.

Look at the WLANs (Wireless Local Area Networks) now in
use by the hundreds of thousands daily, perhaps a dozen
or more in the local vicinity of other WLANs...AND in the
same band as cordless telephones (dozens more) and high-
data-rate systems such as CCTV monitors or music distribution
(dozens more). Each is NOT INTERFERED WITH by all the other
local systems, all can operate as if the others did not
exist. The secret to their success is Distributed Spread
Spectrum techniques plus coding theory. Every system
EXISTS in the same bandwidth yet each is separate and
undisturbed by others. No "heterodynes," no need for
fancy, expensive filters-in-the-IF, or ultimate
refinements of decades-old conventional techniques.

But, you don't seem to care about such possibilities or
even getting a hint of what might be possible. You, like
way too many others will only "accept" something if
someone else has worked it out and it is a PRODUCT on
the market. Then you can sit around and natter about the
advertising phrases and argue someone's "lab reviews"
and sound like "expert radiomen" of "extra" class when
you don't know dink about its insides. Intellectual SLOTH.
LAZINESS. All you wanna do is play wid yer raddios and
pretend to radio greatness. shrug

dit bit

wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am


an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:




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.


Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him

And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer.

Is that not allowed?

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"

Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be
patient, very patient.


- Mike KB3EIA -

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm


wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him

Sweetums, you've been plugging for that all by yourself for
lots of messages in here. You NEGLECT any other forms of
communications and concentrate on imagery, many-pixel images.

"HF will never be the place for high-speed transmission?"
What do you "extra experts" think BPL is basically? Clue:
High-speed data transmission, most of it on HF.

And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer.

Is that not allowed?

It's allowed. It's also allowed that YOU *might* consider
OTHER forms of communications on beloved HF other than what
the holy Handbook says is "good."

Quit acting petulant.

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"

Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be
patient, very patient.

Sorry, I've lost my patience with the brain-draggers in here
only considering U.S. ham radio "high-tech" being some finished
product advertised in QST and having a "lab review" on it all
glowing with praise.

There's an INFINITY of POSSIBILITIES that can be done in U.S.
ham radio and about the ONLY innovation of late is the Tayloe
Mixer (patent pending). Mike Gingell in the UK came up with
the polyphase audio phase shifter for better phasing SSB
and Peter Martinez, also in the UK, came up with PSK31. Once
in a while some U.S. guys come out with an innovating product
and all you "communications experts" all get together and
carp it up, refuse to buy it, or say whatever each one of you
has is "so much better" than anything new. Newness is to be
feared?

Go back in time to the late Dick Carroll complaining and
grousing about his peripheral DSP audio filter...he said
outright in here that he had difficulty setting the
controls! Waaa...waaaa...if it ain't like it usta was in
the 1950s and 1960s it ain't no good!

Okay, so somebody INNOVATE something.

INNOVATE something besides sitting around gabbling how "good"
and "expert" you all are because you are morsemen and grand
champions in radio because you are federally authorized for
beeping. The rest of the radio world is NOT buying it. The
rest of the radio world will continue to improve as it has
been for years. The U.S. amateur radio world can only play
copycat and steal from that, having the ARRL say that "hams
invented it" when it didn't.

Tayloe did it. What have the other 700K+ done? Sit around
griping because none of you have done anything?

non seq