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

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?

Hehe, not a good bet, Brian!


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 . . .

Are puns solutions? I do enjoy those. Imagine if that intellect were
used for good....... ;^)


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?

Wow! 10 db? I knew it was superior. I didn't know it was that much
superior.

But I am firmly convinced that OOK CW coupled with the processing power
of "wetware", is the bottom line of getting the message through.

To argue otherwise is well, not that smart.

Now the worst conditions won't happen every time of course, but they
will happen some times.

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".

Who in the hell (PMF) said THAT????

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?


. apologies . .

These are the realities of REAL ham radio.

Fuggem, let 'em eat cake and rant on.

Good advice!

- Mike KB3EIA -

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