I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

My question is, let's say I have a television set that is capable of
receiving and demodulating FM video carrier waves. What would I see on
the TV? I am aware that no company uses FM video. Would I see sawtooth-
like patterns on the screen due to frequency-modulated electric fields
present in the environment?

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.


Regards,

Radium

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

Radium wrote:

Hi:

I am annoying troll who loves to **** people off!

Radium


Go away, Idiot!


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

Radium,

Some television is actually transmitted using FM modulation schemes, but not
for commercial broadcasting. Examples of FM TV are ham/amateur ATV/SSTV,
unlicensed 2.4 GHz surveillance links, and a number of point to point and
studio to transmitter systems. FM signaling provides benefits in noise
immunity and also permits better channel re-use, since it exploits one of
the best features of FM called "the FM capture effect", wherein nearly equal
strength signals which would otherwise interfere in AM systems will cause an
FM receiver to "capture" only the stronger signal and ignore the weaker,
even if differences of 1 dB of signal strength exists.

There is no specific answer to what you would see as far as video patterns,
and there is no reason whatsoever to expect to see sawtooth waveforms in
particular. The demodulated signal from FM will conform to the spectral
changes just as the demodulated signal from an AM detector would conform to
amplitude changes, and random noise would be considered "snow" in either
case. Unless a transmitted signal with a frequency ramp (sometimes called "a
chirp") is present, the video would have no sawtooth. A Doppler radar, for
example, could generate such a waveform, since some radars create chirped /
swept signals. The video scan rate(s) would additionally need to be in the
range of the chirp rate to create the appearance of a sawtooth.

FM disturbances in the SHF band are likely to be man-made and not
atmospheric, and thus only "viewable" if the "FM Video Receiver" you
envision had a demodulator / discriminator whose bandwidth was tailored to a
specific transmitted waveform, and even then only if sweep rates were
suitable. Absent a man-made transmitter, the SHF environment is mostly
thermal noise (both circuit and atmospheric) and only a radio telescope or
other enormous aperture / antenna will see beyond the atmosphere.

The choice of using AM versus FM is really way more complicated than "AM for
audio" or "FM for digital video". When designing communication systems of
any type, the engineer is faced with balancing many issues, and the channel,
media, noise environment, interference sources, power budget, multipath,
complexity, and cost are only a few of the considerations involved. A highly
reliable cable modem to transmit fast digital content may indeed by phase
modulated with an amplitude trellis; a secure and interference resistant
link may use spread-spectrum frequency hopping AM for digital signaling; and
FM winds up being used heavily in many voice communication systems mostly
because the capture effect reduces co-channel interference.

The closest I can suggest to what you might enjoy exploring would be a
satellite dish and receiver designed for L band which will see and decode
some broadcasting which is unprotected / unencrypted. It gets you into the
range of SHF, has true TV signaling for public viewing, and is a hobbyist
activity with others involved.

Smarty






"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

My question is, let's say I have a television set that is capable of
receiving and demodulating FM video carrier waves. What would I see on
the TV? I am aware that no company uses FM video. Would I see sawtooth-
like patterns on the screen due to frequency-modulated electric fields
present in the environment?

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.


Regards,

Radium

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

On 6/6/07 9:31 PM, in article
, "Radium"
wrote:

Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

My question is, let's say I have a television set that is capable of
receiving and demodulating FM video carrier waves. What would I see on
the TV? I am aware that no company uses FM video. Would I see sawtooth-
like patterns on the screen due to frequency-modulated electric fields
present in the environment?

No FM shf receiver is built for FM video, because there aren't any FM video
broadcast stations. If there was such a receiver and you tuned it to a
standard ntsc video carrier, you would probably see nothing (no sync, no
video), because the limiter stages would saturate and there would be no AM
output.


I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.

It's ok to have an opinion, but who do you suppose is won over by your
preferences?


Regards,

Radium

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

In message . com,
Radium writes
Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

My question is, let's say I have a television set that is capable of
receiving and demodulating FM video carrier waves.
I've got one (or at least the demodulator part of it). It's called a
'Grundig Satellite Receiver GSR2'. It receives German TV. I use it to
watch the German version of the Teletubbies. [Talented chaps, those
Teletubbies, speaking German without a trace of an English accent.
However, 'Eh - Oh' in German is still 'Eh - Oh'].

I also sometimes watch that English 'dinner' programme which several
German channels transmit on New Years' Eve.

Radio amateurs also often use FM to transmit TV signals. With a little
ingenuity (and maybe some modifications), you can actually use satellite
TV receivers to watch these transmissions.

What would I see on
the TV? I am aware that no company uses FM video. Would I see sawtooth-
like patterns on the screen due to frequency-modulated electric fields
present in the environment?
No. If the signal is demodulated correctly, you see normal pictures,
usually of very good quality (and in colour too, if you have a colour TV
set), created by waveforms called 'video'. Potentially, on an AM TV set,
you might be able to get some sort of poor quality picture if you could
slope-detect the FM TV signal. However, the deviation of normal
satellite signal is much too great, and I doubt if you would get
anything usable (just a lot of squiggles on the screen, like you
suggest).

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.
On a spectrum analyser, you see a wide FM signal, where the deviation is
caused by the 'video disturbances'. This is normal.


AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.
It can be (eg where the instantaneous deviation or frequency corresponds
to the value of a digit). However, for digital signals, the boffins have
devised all sorts of clever systems of modulation. Some of these can be
thought of simplistically as a mixture of AM and FM, but some are really
complicated. These are designed to be much more efficient than 'simple'
AM or FM.

Ian.
--

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

Walt Davidson wrote:

What did you do to serve your country?


Why? Are you thinking of enlisting? My MOS was Broadcast Engineer.


Bomb Iraq?


No, I was too old, and in the wrong branch. Dropping old TV
transmitters from planes doesn't do much damage, anyway.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

Walt Davidson wrote:

In fairness, it wasn't really your fault. If Blair had been our Prime
Minister at the time (perish the thought!), we would probably have
been implicated in it as well!

73 de G3NYY

Well, at least you're getting rid of "Lap-Dog" Blair. We should be so
lucky with Bush/Cheney.

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

On Jun 7, 11:05 am, "Gordon Hudson" wrote:
"Mike Gathergood, G4KFK" wrote in glegroups.com...

On 7 Jun, 08:43, Ian Jackson
wrote:
I've got one (or at least the demodulator part of it). It's called a
'Grundig Satellite Receiver GSR2'. It receives German TV. I use it to
watch the German version of the Teletubbies. [Talented chaps, those
Teletubbies, speaking German without a trace of an English accent.
However, 'Eh - Oh' in German is still 'Eh - Oh'].

So what's German for "Tinky-winky fallen in da tubby-tussard"?

Tinky-winky ist in den fetten Vanillepudding gefallen.

Thanks Gordon, very useful. Now I need to figure out how to bring it
into conversation :-)

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

I generally treat all questions as sincere unless they are conspicuously
juvenile or inflammatory. I am not aware of the trolling reputation /
history of this particular individual, but I fully accept the possibility
that the inquiry was bogus. It is sometimes hard to separate sincere but
poorly stated legitimate questions from those which are deliberately
misguided and troll. Let's see how Radium replies, if at all.

Smarty




"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Smarty" wrote ...
Radium,

You've been trolled by the latest king of trolls.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:22:13 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.

What did you do to serve your country? Bomb Iraq?

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
He/she voted for Bush.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:33:34 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

No, I was too old, and in the wrong branch. Dropping old TV
transmitters from planes doesn't do much damage, anyway.

Member of DAV #85.

"Whatever you do, don't mention the war!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...fic/716609.stm

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Yer banging your head on a wall - Yanks don't do irony.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:09:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

I served during Vietnam, but only on US soil. I was scheduled to go,
to work at an AFRTS TV station, but I ended up being sent to the station
in Alaska, at he US Army cold weather test site. That didn't stop the
idiots from screaming and cursing at me when I flew home in 1974.

In fairness, it wasn't really your fault. If Blair had been our Prime
Minister at the time (perish the thought!), we would probably have
been implicated in it as well!

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Blair doesn't do irony either.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"default" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:22:30 +0100, Walt Davidson
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:09:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

I served during Vietnam, but only on US soil. I was scheduled to go,
to work at an AFRTS TV station, but I ended up being sent to the station
in Alaska, at he US Army cold weather test site. That didn't stop the
idiots from screaming and cursing at me when I flew home in 1974.

In fairness, it wasn't really your fault. If Blair had been our Prime
Minister at the time (perish the thought!), we would probably have
been implicated in it as well!

73 de G3NYY

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Your democracy is on a par with ours we elect the government to serve us as
our servants and then we do what we are told by them. (I do irony).
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Robert Peffers." wrote:

He voted for Bush.


Wrong, **** for brains. In fact, I was confined to bed for so long
that I missed the cut-off date to register to vote, after moving.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Robert Peffers." wrote:

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).


Groundskeeper Willie! Is that you?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

They are FM on analogue satellite.

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

Buy an old analogue satellite receiver.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"default" wrote in message
...

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .

In practise the people rule just enough to stop them rioting etc, and no
more.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peffers." wrote:

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).


Groundskeeper Willie! Is that you?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.


Now THAT is funny!

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peffers." wrote:

He voted for Bush.


Wrong, **** for brains. In fact, I was confined to bed for so long
that I missed the cut-off date to register to vote, after moving.


Our DMV will get you a voters registration card without proof of citizenship
but to renew my driver license, I had to provide my original social security
card.

How's that for irony?

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Lord Garth" wrote in message
et...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peffers." wrote:

He voted for Bush.


Wrong, **** for brains. In fact, I was confined to bed for so long
that I missed the cut-off date to register to vote, after moving.


Our DMV will get you a voters registration card without proof of
citizenship
but to renew my driver license, I had to provide my original social
security
card.

How's that for irony?

It is what passes for "government" here in North America, alas.

(OT) : "Default" {It's Not Your Fault That You Are Confused :-}
 

On Jun 7, 4:57 am, default wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:22:30 +0100, Walt Davidson

wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:09:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

I served during Vietnam, but only on US soil. I was scheduled to go,
to work at an AFRTS TV station, but I ended up being sent to the station
in Alaska, at he US Army cold weather test site. That didn't stop the
idiots from screaming and cursing at me when I flew home in 1974.

In fairness, it wasn't really your fault. If Blair had been our Prime
Minister at the time (perish the thought!), we would probably have
been implicated in it as well!

73 de G3NYY

- In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
- the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Default" {It's Not Your Fault That You Are Confused :-}

You Have Been Lied To By Your Liberal Teachers & Professors !

You Have Been Lied To By The Liberal Elite and Democrats !

You Have Been Lied To By The Liberal Media Elite !

America {The USA} Is A Republic [.]
- - - Why 'is' American {The USA} a Republic ? ? ?
The USA is a Republic with Constitutionally Guaranteed Individual
Rights
and Freedoms with a Strong Democratic Tradition -vice-
A Simple Majority {Mob} Rule Democracy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

-IF- You want a Democracy go to China (PRC)
Note - PRC = People's Republic of China
- - - Oops They Are Not a Democracy Either.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ch.html

-OR- You could get a Democracy by going to Iran (IRI)
Note - IRI = Islamic Republic of Iran
- - - Oops They Are Not a Democracy Either.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ir.html

OH NEVER MIND - Fidel Castro {El Presidente for Life}
will give you all the Democracy you need in Cuba.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/cu.html

Proud To Say : I Am An American ~ RHF
God {Allah} Bless The USA - Amen !

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"default" wrote in message
...

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
(Majority does NOT always rule)

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

You are durn right USA is a Republic.
cuhulin

(OT) : Voting No ID Required . . .
 

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 7, 2:27 pm, "Lord Garth" wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
...

"Robert Peffers." wrote:

He voted for Bush.

Wrong, **** for brains. In fact, I was confined to bed for so long
that I missed the cut-off date to register to vote, after moving.
-
- Our DMV will get you a voters registration card without
- proof of citizenship but to renew my driver license,
- I had to provide my original social security card.
-
- How's that for irony?

LG - And To Vote - All you have to do is walk up and read a Name off
the Voters List and tell them you are that person. They are not
allowed to check any ID -or- even ask for and ID when you Vote.

An Honest "UN" Approved Election that Jimmy Carter
would Publicly Monitor would have Each Legal Voter :
* Present an Offical Government ID Card
* Give a Thumb Print using Indelible Purple {24 Hour} Ink
* Then Vote Once and Once Only



Uh huh, the UN & Jimmy Carter... Government ID cards.... Bah!

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"labtech_one" wrote in message
...

"default" wrote in message
...

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
(Majority does NOT always rule)




Is there anything to prevent a republic also being democratic?

As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic",
1. A state where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president.
2. Literally it means a society with equality between its members.

While a democracy is -
1. (a), a system of government by the whole population, usu. through elected
representatives. (b), a state so governed. (c), any organization governed on
democratic principles.
2. an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a Republic, (in the literal
sense of the word)?

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a "Democracy", (in the
literal sense of the word)?

In effect both the USA and the UK are now, "Oligarchies"-

Oligarchy,
1 government by a small group of people.
2 a state governed in this way.
3 the members of such a government.

Just consider how Bush and Blair took our two countries into wars that the
public, by the large, did not want and you will see that neither state is
either democratic nor republican.

We elect these people as our servants to carry out our democratic wishes and
they then become the masters and we the servants. It is long past time for
the people of both democracies to reassert themselves and demand their
appointed servants remain their servants rather than their leaders and/or
masters.

Will I now have to beware of black 'copters at dawn?
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:57:17 -0400, "labtech_one"
wrote:


"default" wrote in message
.. .

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
(Majority does NOT always rule)

A democratic republic - or as the decider is fond of saying a
"democracy."

We are "bringing democracy to Iraq." Hear it over and over.

More like bringing hypocrisy, but they prefer to use "democracy."
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

default wrote:

We are "bringing democracy to Iraq." Hear it over and over.

Why??? It seems we think "democracy" is "one size fits all".

Are we too arrogant to at least consider that [fill in the country of
your choice] maybe, just maybe, might want some form of government other
than "democracy"?

(OT) : The Many Changing Faces of Hillary . . .
 

RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 5:20 am, Tommy Tootles wrote:
Walt Davidson wrote:
In fairness, it wasn't really your fault. If Blair had been our Prime
Minister at the time (perish the thought!), we would probably have
been implicated in it as well!
73 de G3NYY
Well, at least you're getting rid of "Lap-Dog" Blair. We should be so
lucky with Bush/Cheney.

TT,

Let see how you like the Iron Fisted Grip of Mistress Hillary
http://www.photosled.com/data/1219/jjacksonclinton.jpg

-OR- May be Darth Hillary ;-}
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...ary_vader2.jpg

Then Again - There Is Hillary's Big Secret !
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/p...n20su20spy.jpg

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Shrillery is not my cup of tea...

(See, It Looks Like We Actually DO Agree On Something[!])

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

In message , Robert Peffers.
writes


As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic",
1. A state where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president.
2. Literally it means a society with equality between its members.

Does it 'literally' not mean a 'public thing', or 'a thing of the
people' (from your actual Latin 'res publicae')?

Ian.
--

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

In article ,
"Robert Peffers." wrote:

"labtech_one" wrote in message
...

"default" wrote in message
...

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . .
--


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
(Majority does NOT always rule)




Is there anything to prevent a republic also being democratic?

Yes

As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic",
1. A state where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president.
2. Literally it means a society with equality between its members.

Neither of which is the definition of Republic.

While a democracy is -
1. (a), a system of government by the whole population, usu. through elected
representatives. (b), a state so governed. (c), any organization governed on
democratic principles.
2. an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.

Well, you got that wrong as well.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a Republic, (in the literal
sense of the word)?

Sure. We do.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a "Democracy", (in the
literal sense of the word)?

Yes. Many many many people incorrectly believe that. The press insists
on getting it wrong every day.

In effect both the USA and the UK are now, "Oligarchies"-

Except for the part where we're not.

Oligarchy,
1 government by a small group of people.
2 a state governed in this way.
3 the members of such a government.

Just consider how Bush and Blair took our two countries into wars that the
public, by the large, did not want and you will see that neither state is
either democratic nor republican.

Even if your statement were true, your conclusion still wouldn't be.

We elect these people as our servants to carry out our democratic wishes and
they then become the masters and we the servants. It is long past time for
the people of both democracies to reassert themselves and demand their
appointed servants remain their servants rather than their leaders and/or
masters.

Will I now have to beware of black 'copters at dawn?

I'm sure your level of dishonesty and delusion requires it.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

None of this crap belongs in sci.electronics.basics.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:04:58 +0100, Robert Peffers. wrote:


"labtech_one" wrote in message
...

"default" wrote in message
...

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . . --


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (Majority does
NOT always rule)




Is there anything to prevent a republic also being democratic?

As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic", 1. A state
where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president. 2. Literally it
means a society with equality between its members.

While a democracy is -
1. (a), a system of government by the whole population, usu. through
elected representatives. (b), a state so governed. (c), any organization
governed on democratic principles.
2. an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a Republic, (in the
literal sense of the word)?

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a "Democracy", (in the
literal sense of the word)?

In effect both the USA and the UK are now, "Oligarchies"-

Oligarchy,
1 government by a small group of people. 2 a state governed in this way.
3 the members of such a government.

Just consider how Bush and Blair took our two countries into wars that the
public, by the large, did not want and you will see that neither state is
either democratic nor republican.

We elect these people as our servants to carry out our democratic wishes
and they then become the masters and we the servants. It is long past time
for the people of both democracies to reassert themselves and demand their
appointed servants remain their servants rather than their leaders and/or
masters.

Will I now have to beware of black 'copters at dawn?

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

None of this crap belongs in sci.electronics.basics.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:05:11 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Robert Peffers.
writes


As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic", 1. A state
where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president. 2. Literally it
means a society with equality between its members.

Does it 'literally' not mean a 'public thing', or 'a thing of the people'
(from your actual Latin 'res publicae')?

Ian.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

None of this crap belongs in sci.electronics.basics.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:57:37 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Peffers." wrote:

"labtech_one" wrote in message
...

"default" wrote in message
...

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . . --


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (Majority
does NOT always rule)




Is there anything to prevent a republic also being democratic?

Yes

As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic", 1. A state
where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president. 2. Literally
it means a society with equality between its members.

Neither of which is the definition of Republic.

While a democracy is -
1. (a), a system of government by the whole population, usu. through
elected representatives. (b), a state so governed. (c), any organization
governed on democratic principles.
2. an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.

Well, you got that wrong as well.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a Republic, (in the
literal sense of the word)?

Sure. We do.

Can any USAsian really believe that they live in a "Democracy", (in the
literal sense of the word)?

Yes. Many many many people incorrectly believe that. The press insists
on getting it wrong every day.

In effect both the USA and the UK are now, "Oligarchies"-

Except for the part where we're not.

Oligarchy,
1 government by a small group of people. 2 a state governed in this way.
3 the members of such a government.

Just consider how Bush and Blair took our two countries into wars that
the public, by the large, did not want and you will see that neither
state is either democratic nor republican.

Even if your statement were true, your conclusion still wouldn't be.

We elect these people as our servants to carry out our democratic wishes
and they then become the masters and we the servants. It is long past
time for the people of both democracies to reassert themselves and
demand their appointed servants remain their servants rather than their
leaders and/or masters.

Will I now have to beware of black 'copters at dawn?

I'm sure your level of dishonesty and delusion requires it.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

None of this crap belongs in sci.electronics.basics.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:23:11 -0400, default wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:57:17 -0400, "labtech_one"
wrote:


"default" wrote in message
. ..

SNIP

In all fairness it is/was our fault. Theoretically (in a democracy)
the people rule. We must really like the idea of war . . . --


in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (Majority does
NOT always rule)

A democratic republic - or as the decider is fond of saying a "democracy."

We are "bringing democracy to Iraq." Hear it over and over.

More like bringing hypocrisy, but they prefer to use "democracy."

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

No, they're not. And there's no such thing as an "AM carrier"
or "FM carrier" to begin with. The carriers themselves are simply
signals at a given frequency. "AM" or "FM" refers to the modulation
IMPOSED on those carriers - in other words, how the information
to be carried is used to modify some aspect of the carrier signal.

In TV, most systems employ a version of AM to carry the luminance
(Y) signal; the color (chroma) information is carried via a somwhat
different version of AM, and the audio is most commonly FM.
The French SECAM system as originally implemented carried the
chroma information on TWO frequency-modulated subcarriers.


My question is, let's say I have a television set that is capable of
receiving and demodulating FM video carrier waves. What would I see on
the TV? I am aware that no company uses FM video. Would I see sawtooth-
like patterns on the screen due to frequency-modulated electric fields
present in the environment?


No.

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.

Nonsense. The choices of AM and FM within the original analog
standard definitions were made for some very, very good reasons.
Digital television is a completely different beast, and is presently
broadcast using two very different modulation schemes - the
U.S. standard (ATSC) using 8-VSB, while the rest of the world
(mostly) will be using COFDM under the DVB-T standard.

Bob M.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:04:58 +0100, "Robert Peffers."
wrote:

in all fairness, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
(Majority does NOT always rule)




Is there anything to prevent a republic also being democratic?



The Republican Party !


rj

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

On Jun 6, 10:35 pm, "Smarty" wrote:
Radium,

Some television is actually transmitted using FM modulation schemes, but not
for commercial broadcasting. Examples of FM TV are ham/amateur ATV/SSTV,
unlicensed 2.4 GHz surveillance links, and a number of point to point and
studio to transmitter systems. FM signaling provides benefits in noise
immunity and also permits better channel re-use, since it exploits one of
the best features of FM called "the FM capture effect", wherein nearly equal
strength signals which would otherwise interfere in AM systems will cause an
FM receiver to "capture" only the stronger signal and ignore the weaker,
even if differences of 1 dB of signal strength exists.

There is no specific answer to what you would see as far as video patterns,
and there is no reason whatsoever to expect to see sawtooth waveforms in
particular. The demodulated signal from FM will conform to the spectral
changes just as the demodulated signal from an AM detector would conform to
amplitude changes, and random noise would be considered "snow" in either
case. Unless a transmitted signal with a frequency ramp (sometimes called "a
chirp") is present, the video would have no sawtooth. A Doppler radar, for
example, could generate such a waveform, since some radars create chirped /
swept signals. The video scan rate(s) would additionally need to be in the
range of the chirp rate to create the appearance of a sawtooth.

FM disturbances in the SHF band are likely to be man-made and not
atmospheric, and thus only "viewable" if the "FM Video Receiver" you
envision had a demodulator / discriminator whose bandwidth was tailored to a
specific transmitted waveform, and even then only if sweep rates were
suitable. Absent a man-made transmitter, the SHF environment is mostly
thermal noise (both circuit and atmospheric) and only a radio telescope or
other enormous aperture / antenna will see beyond the atmosphere.

The choice of using AM versus FM is really way more complicated than "AM for
audio" or "FM for digital video". When designing communication systems of
any type, the engineer is faced with balancing many issues, and the channel,
media, noise environment, interference sources, power budget, multipath,
complexity, and cost are only a few of the considerations involved. A highly
reliable cable modem to transmit fast digital content may indeed by phase
modulated with an amplitude trellis; a secure and interference resistant
link may use spread-spectrum frequency hopping AM for digital signaling; and
FM winds up being used heavily in many voice communication systems mostly
because the capture effect reduces co-channel interference.

The closest I can suggest to what you might enjoy exploring would be a
satellite dish and receiver designed for L band which will see and decode
some broadcasting which is unprotected / unencrypted. It gets you into the
range of SHF, has true TV signaling for public viewing, and is a hobbyist
activity with others involved.

Smarty, big thanks for your detailed response. One big advantage [that
I could imagine] to using FM -- instead of AM -- to carry the
luminance (Y) signal, is that you can run on your treadmill without
seeing those lines on the screen mask your favorite shows. The
magnetic signals generated by the electronics in the treadmill causes
blinding interference on AM video. FM video is be immune to such
disruptions.

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

On Jun 8, 11:38 am, "Bob Myers" wrote:
"Radium" wrote in message

ups.com...

Hi:

Video signals for NTSC, PAL, and SECAM television are transmitted on
AM carriers.

No, they're not. And there's no such thing as an "AM carrier"
or "FM carrier" to begin with. The carriers themselves are simply
signals at a given frequency. "AM" or "FM" refers to the modulation
IMPOSED on those carriers - in other words, how the information
to be carried is used to modify some aspect of the carrier signal.

Okay. Thanks for clearing this up.

In TV, most systems employ a version of AM to carry the luminance
(Y) signal; the color (chroma) information is carried via a somwhat
different version of AM, and the audio is most commonly FM.
The French SECAM system as originally implemented carried the
chroma information on TWO frequency-modulated subcarriers.

Why not carry the luminance-signal on FM and the audio-signal on AM?

I'd really like buy a TV with a FM-video receiver; I want to find out
what FM-video disturbances in the SHF [Super High Frequency ]
frequency-range look like. I am sick n' tired of AM video.

AM should be used for analog audio. FM should be used for digital
video.

Nonsense. The choices of AM and FM within the original analog
standard definitions were made for some very, very good reasons.
Digital television is a completely different beast, and is presently
broadcast using two very different modulation schemes - the
U.S. standard (ATSC) using 8-VSB, while the rest of the world
(mostly) will be using COFDM under the DVB-T standard.

Couldn't FSK [the digital equivalent of FM] be used for luminance [Y]
signal of the digital video?

I want to see SHF FM video signals.
 

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

In TV, most systems employ a version of AM to carry the luminance
(Y) signal; the color (chroma) information is carried via a somwhat
different version of AM, and the audio is most commonly FM.
The French SECAM system as originally implemented carried the
chroma information on TWO frequency-modulated subcarriers.

Why not carry the luminance-signal on FM and the audio-signal on AM?

The reasons (primarily) behind using the AM visual and FM aural signals for
television a

Visual: Bandwidth. Visual uses what is called 'vestigial sideband'. This
means that basically only one sideband carries the modulation, with only a
vestige of the other sideband remaining, thereby reducing the bandwidth
needed for the visual signal by a significant factor. If FM were used, the
entire symmetrical waveform would have to be used, and would use a lot more
bandwidth. (Analog satellite television does/did use FM modulation, on the
order of 36 MHz IIRC, but bandwidth in the GHz ranges isn't at as much of a
premium as on relatively crowded VHF and UHF frequencies

Aural: Coverage. The aural signal (which is sent separately from the visual)
is only about 10% of the power of the visual signal.

I want to see your head on a pike.
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Robert Peffers.
writes


As far as I know there are two definitions of, "Republic",
1. A state where supreme power is held by the people, or their elected
representatives, or by an elected or nominated president.
2. Literally it means a society with equality between its members.

Does it 'literally' not mean a 'public thing', or 'a thing of the people'
(from your actual Latin 'res publicae')?

Ian.
--

republic / n.
1 a state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected
representatives or by an elected or nominated president, not by a monarch
etc.
2 a society with equality between its members (the literary republic).
[French république from Latin respublica, from res 'concern' + publicus
public]

A, "Cut & Paste", from Concise Oxford Dictionary.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).