|
End of the road for shortwave?
|
End of the road for shortwave?
I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I
hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message m... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 |
End of the road for shortwave?
Slade Henson wrote:
I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message m... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. |
End of the road for shortwave?
dave wrote:
Slade Henson wrote: I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message m... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. For old times sake? Because it's there? I buy newspapers, I watch television, I get online and I also listen to shortwave. The good thing about radio is that it can just "happen" in the background while you are doing something else. Newspapers, TV, and to some extent, the internet, are less amenable to that. Radio has a certain charm about it that the internet does not. Maybe it is simply the fact that the internet makes it all too easy. Anyway, one really big plus is that the radio doesn't chew up my internet bandwidth! Krypsis |
End of the road for shortwave?
What is with these naysayers on a shortwave newsgroup who are
anti-shortwave? I'm scratching my head to try to figure out why guys that are so AGAINST something bother with lurking around in the shadows of a newsgroup devoted to a specific topic. Every time one of these doomsday posts appears the creeps crawl out of the woodwork and bad rap shortwave radio which, incidentally, is healthy and thriving. If you look at the article source it came from "CZ" land...so maybe in "CZ" things have changed with domestic shortwave but during the last year there has been countless new outlets and and expanded shortwave coverage appear throughout the globe. Pay no attention to such nonsense. Regardless of what the overzealous techno-cheerleaders would like us all to believe, the world is not only comprised of industrialized nations full of brainwashed people who've let themselves become hypnotized by the Internet. The frail and choking Internet is rife with mushrooming problems and the portability and ready-access to shortwave will continue to thrive. Many countries in even the last year have realized this and have increased their shortwave facilities and schedules. |
End of the road for shortwave?
On 1/19/2010 5:10 PM, Al Fansome wrote:
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 OH NO! Al "the bringer of death" Fansome. Please Al, don't Fansomeize shortwave. and, for the uninformed, Mr. Fansome is not bring shortwave down, he is just passing on an a news article. Drifter... |
End of the road for shortwave?
Carl wrote:
Every time one of these doomsday posts appears the creeps crawl out of the woodwork and bad rap shortwave radio which, incidentally, is healthy and thriving. If you look at the article source it came from "CZ" land...so maybe in "CZ" things have changed with domestic shortwave but during the last year there has been countless new outlets and and expanded shortwave coverage appear throughout the globe. IMHO the article is a very nice explanation why they are reducing their shortwave broadcasts. It's spun (spinned?) that they are doing it because everyone else is doing it, which is not really true. Many places are doing it because there are a lot better and cheaper ways of reaching their audience. At one time radio was the new, better and cheaper (for the producer) way. Now there are lots of others. BUT it does not mean that everyone, or even most producers are doing it. Sorry guys, while you were using the internet to pirate music and video, the rest of the world was taking over the air waves. The world really is not all the US and the EU. If you think so, go to Radio China's English web site and look at their coverage and schedule, there's more there than the BBC has had in a very long time. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
End of the road for shortwave?
Carl wrote:
What is with these naysayers on a shortwave newsgroup who are anti-shortwave? I'm scratching my head to try to figure out why guys that are so AGAINST something bother with lurking around in the shadows of a newsgroup devoted to a specific topic. Every time one of these doomsday posts appears the creeps crawl out of the woodwork and bad rap shortwave radio which, incidentally, is healthy and thriving. If you look at the article source it came from "CZ" land...so maybe in "CZ" things have changed with domestic shortwave but during the last year there has been countless new outlets and and expanded shortwave coverage appear throughout the globe. Pay no attention to such nonsense. Regardless of what the overzealous techno-cheerleaders would like us all to believe, the world is not only comprised of industrialized nations full of brainwashed people who've let themselves become hypnotized by the Internet. The frail and choking Internet is rife with mushrooming problems and the portability and ready-access to shortwave will continue to thrive. Many countries in even the last year have realized this and have increased their shortwave facilities and schedules. Such as? I have nothing against shortwave radio. In fact, I spent $2k last week on a shortwave radio. HFBC is dead. Not shortwave. Not radio. HFBC. www.vpr.net carries the World Service on a dialup friendly low-fi stream. |
End of the road for shortwave?
Bob Dobbs wrote:
Shortwave versus the internet - I've never caught a cyber virus from my short wave radio, heard lots of infected prattle from the xians, but tuning away or turning it off sure is easier than a format and restore. I use Puppy Linux whenever possible. I like the BBC a lot. When I lived in Texas and they were slamming 250 KW at the Americas from Ascension back in the '80s, I could easily hear the air handlers in Bush House on my 2010. That was fantastic audio. Now I listen to the World Service on satellite or the web, and I find other amazing things to listen to on the radio (like really weak stations 9,000 miles away). |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 20, 5:16*am, dave wrote:
Slade Henson wrote: I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message om... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. *Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. Dave - not trying to sound like a jerk, but why do you always put down shortwave on a shortwave newsgroup of all places? Inquiring minds want to know. :-) |
End of the road for shortwave?
Gregg wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:16 am, dave wrote: Slade Henson wrote: I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message m... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. Dave - not trying to sound like a jerk, but why do you always put down shortwave on a shortwave newsgroup of all places? Inquiring minds want to know. :-) Gregg, he answered that question in another response. Makes you sound like a jerk! Inquiring minds should try to keep up instead of getting sarcastic! Krypsis |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 20, 7:06*am, "Carl" wrote:
What is with these naysayers on a shortwave newsgroup who are anti-shortwave? I'm scratching my head to try to figure out why guys that are so AGAINST something bother with lurking around in the shadows of a newsgroup devoted to a specific topic. Every time one of these doomsday posts appears the creeps crawl out of the woodwork and bad rap shortwave radio which, incidentally, is healthy and thriving. ***APPLAUSE***APPLAUSE*** I hit the send button basically saying what you said above before I got to your post. I know this group is about the entire spectrum and antennas plus all the other goodies that go along with this great hobby. But the namesake of this forum is ahem "shortwave" - so I agree with the head scratching also but I think deep down we both know why specific people always seem to beat that drum. I'll let them figure it out. Ha! |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 20, 9:58*am, dave wrote:
I have nothing against shortwave radio. *In fact, I spent $2k last week on a shortwave radio. *HFBC is dead. *Not shortwave. *Not radio. *HFBC. - Show quoted text - OK Dave. I stand corrected. I'll believe you. This time. ;-) |
End of the road for shortwave?
Gregg wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:16 am, wrote: Slade Henson wrote: I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al wrote in message m... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. Dave - not trying to sound like a jerk, but why do you always put down shortwave on a shortwave newsgroup of all places? Inquiring minds want to know. :-) Shortwave is a synonym for HF, which is a band of frequencies from 3 MHz to 30 MHz. HFBC is a small slice of the shortwave pie. I find it laughable that people think that in this day and age there's a challenge to receiving a 50 KW radio station. |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 21, 5:45*am, Krypsis wrote:
Gregg wrote: On Jan 20, 5:16 am, dave wrote: Slade Henson wrote: I hope not. I was into shortwave 30 years ago and returned six years ago. I hope it continues; it's one of my main sources of international news. slade Interesting article. Definitely explains why there are a lot less signals now than in the 70s "Al Fansome" wrote in message news:LrmdnYn7pMdHsMvWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@supernews .com... http://www.radio.cz/en/article/124187 You obviously have the internet. *Why wouldn't you get international news via it, rather than fuzzy old HFBC, which went out with the Berlin Wall. Dave - not trying to sound like a jerk, but why do you always put down shortwave on a shortwave newsgroup of all places? Inquiring minds want to know. :-) Gregg, he answered that question in another response. Makes you sound like a jerk! Inquiring minds should try to keep up instead of getting sarcastic! Krypsis- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I saw no sarcasm in Gregg's post - none at all - and I seriously wonder about the sarcasm in your own. Gregg's was a reasonable question, and it is unreasonable to expect a person to see EVERY other post from a given individual, for a number of reasons. BTW, Dave answered it appropriately too, even though I disagree with him. Bruce Jensen |
End of the road for shortwave?
(CNN) -- In the brutal aftermath of Haiti's earthquake, Jean-Robert Gaillard
turned to his low-tech radio for solace and for a lifeline. When the earthquake hit, the 57-year-old from Petionville, Haiti, found most of his normal lines of communication -- his cell phone, the Internet, even his ability to walk down the street and talk to someone -- severed by the disaster. Full story can be read on www.qrz.com. |
End of the road for shortwave?
bpnjensen wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:45 am, Krypsis wrote: Gregg wrote: snip - Show quoted text - I saw no sarcasm in Gregg's post - none at all - and I seriously wonder about the sarcasm in your own. My sarcasm was deliberate. You see, Gregg, in posts to other newsgroups, where he was harassing other posters, used the same line, "Inquiring minds want to know." He seems to have picked up the habit from his troll friends as they are wont to use that line, in particular, nurk fred. Gregg's was a reasonable question, and it is unreasonable to expect a person to see EVERY other post from a given individual, for a number of reasons. It is entirely reasonable to expect a person to read ahead on a topic to see if his "question" has been answered already. I was able to do so with my usenet client. If Gregg cannot easily do so, then I suggest he move from Google Groups to a more amenable usenet client. That way he will be less prone to "sounding like a jerk". BTW, Dave answered it appropriately too, even though I disagree with him. Bruce Jensen Krypsis |
End of the road for shortwave?
dave wrote:
Shortwave is a synonym for HF, which is a band of frequencies from 3 MHz to 30 MHz. HFBC is a small slice of the shortwave pie. I find it laughable that people think that in this day and age there's a challenge to receiving a 50 KW radio station. a) All stations are not 50 kW. b) There is the intangible "magic" of radio that some enjoy. c) As stated previously, use shortwave for radio magic. Use the internet if you want solid copy on programming content. There is room for both. |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 21, 1:10*pm, Krypsis wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On Jan 21, 5:45 am, Krypsis wrote: Gregg wrote: snip - Show quoted text - I saw no sarcasm in Gregg's post - none at all - *and I seriously wonder about the sarcasm in your own. My sarcasm was deliberate. You see, Gregg, in posts to other newsgroups, * where he was harassing other posters, used the same line, "Inquiring minds want to know." He seems to have picked up the habit from his troll friends as they are wont to use that line, in particular, nurk fred. Gregg's was a reasonable question, and it is unreasonable to expect a person to see EVERY other post from a given individual, for a number of reasons. It is entirely reasonable to expect a person to read ahead on a topic to see if his "question" has been answered already. I was able to do so with my usenet client. If Gregg cannot easily do so, then I suggest he move from Google Groups to a more amenable usenet client. That way he will be less prone to "sounding like a jerk". BTW, Dave answered it appropriately too, even though I disagree with him. Bruce Jensen Krypsis Very well - but frankly, *in this instance*, his question sounded reasonable and credible and forthright and on-topic, very un-troll- like, where your response did not. Bruce Jensen |
End of the road for shortwave?
The first ''Radios'' were Telephones.(Telephone, Telegraph, and
TellaWoman) As long as there are People on Earth, and when Earthlings start setting up Housekeeping on other Planets, (http://www.devilfinder.com Hijacking the Red Planet) there will always be a need and also a use for Telephones and also for Shortwave Radio. http://www.krud.com ET, Phone Home! cuhulin |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 22, 5:25*am, dave wrote:
wrote: The first ''Radios'' were Telephones.(Telephone, Telegraph, and TellaWoman) As long as there are People on Earth, and when Earthlings start setting up Housekeeping on other Planets, * (http://www.devilfinder.com Hijacking the Red Planet) *there will always be a need and also a use for Telephones and also for Shortwave Radio. http://www.krud.com ET, Phone Home! cuhulin What transpired during the dog days of summer 1859, across the 150 million-kilometer (about 93 million-mile) chasm of interplanetary space that separates the Sun and Earth, was this: on August 28, solar observers noted the development of numerous sunspots on the Sun's surface. Sunspots are localized regions of extremely intense magnetic fields. These magnetic fields intertwine, and the resulting magnetic energy can generate a sudden, violent release of energy called a solar flare. From August 28 to September 2 several solar flares were observed. Then, on September 1, the Sun released a mammoth solar flare. For almost an entire minute the amount of sunlight the Sun produced at the region of the flare actually doubled. "With the flare came this explosive release of a massive cloud of magnetically charged plasma called a coronal mass ejection," said Tsurutani. "Not all coronal mass ejections head toward Earth. Those that do usually take three to four days to get here. This one took all of 17 hours and 40 minutes," he noted. see captionNot only was this coronal mass ejection an extremely fast mover, the magnetic fields contained within it were extremely intense and in direct opposition with Earth's magnetic fields. That meant the coronal mass ejection of September 1, 1859, overwhelmed Earth's own magnetic field, allowing charged particles to penetrate into Earth's upper atmosphere. The endgame to such a stellar event is one heck of a light show and more -- including potential disruptions of electrical grids and communications systems. Back in 1859 the invention of the telegraph was only 15 years old and society's electrical framework was truly in its infancy. A 1994 solar storm caused major malfunctions to two communications satellites, disrupting newspaper, network television and nationwide radio service throughout Canada. Other storms have affected systems ranging from cell phone service and TV signals to GPS systems and electrical power grids. In March 1989, a solar storm much less intense than the perfect space storm of 1859 caused the Hydro-Quebec (Canada) power grid to go down for over nine hours, and the resulting damages and loss in revenue were estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. "The question I get asked most often is, 'Could a perfect space storm happen again, and when?'" added Tsurutani. "I tell people it could, and it could very well be even more intense than what transpired in 1859. As for when, we simply do not know," he said. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...superstorm.htm Dave, not sure what your point is - a temporary and relatively rare disruption does not obviate an otherwise useful technology. I don't doubt his claims, and this is not a challenge, but I am curious as to how the scientist relating this tale of 19th century woe has determined the specifics so well that he can "predict" the solar mass ejection travelling through space at half the speed of light. That is crazy FAST for anything heavier than a photon. It must have been ridiculously energetic to achieve that velocity. How could we determine this 150 years after the fact, and with no reliable recording equipment at the time? Was it based purely on observations of the flare and timing of the disruption, whatever form that took? Was the telegraphy disrupted? Did keys everywhere begin to chatter chaotically? And if so, was it certain that it was the particular observed flare that resulted in the CME, or could it have been a slighlty earlier flare? Bruce Jensen |
End of the road for shortwave?
bpnjensen wrote:
Dave, not sure what your point is - a temporary and relatively rare disruption does not obviate an otherwise useful technology. I don't doubt his claims, and this is not a challenge, but I am curious as to how the scientist relating this tale of 19th century woe has determined the specifics so well that he can "predict" the solar mass ejection travelling through space at half the speed of light. That is crazy FAST for anything heavier than a photon. It must have been ridiculously energetic to achieve that velocity. How could we determine this 150 years after the fact, and with no reliable recording equipment at the time? Was it based purely on observations of the flare and timing of the disruption, whatever form that took? Was the telegraphy disrupted? Did keys everywhere begin to chatter chaotically? And if so, was it certain that it was the particular observed flare that resulted in the CME, or could it have been a slighlty earlier flare? Bruce Jensen It took down the telegraph. They saw the flare and 17 hours later the telegraph system freaked. |
End of the road for shortwave?
A BIG enough Solar Flare can/could Wipe out Bouque Piaster!
What will happen when our Sun goes belly up in about four and a half sumpin billion years from now? Assuming there are still human beings still ON Planet Earth, and also if modern technology keeps on rollin along, there will be millions of people living Under Earth/Underground. cuhulin |
End of the road for shortwave?
On Jan 22, 11:22*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: Dave, not sure what your point is - a temporary and relatively rare disruption does not obviate an otherwise useful technology. I don't doubt his claims, and this is not a challenge, but I am curious as to how the scientist relating this tale of 19th century woe has determined the specifics so well that he can "predict" the solar mass ejection travelling through space at half the speed of light. That is crazy FAST for anything heavier than a photon. *It must have been ridiculously energetic to achieve that velocity. *How could we determine this 150 years after the fact, and with no reliable recording equipment at the time? *Was it based purely on observations of the flare and timing of the disruption, whatever form that took? Was the telegraphy disrupted? *Did keys everywhere begin to chatter chaotically? *And if so, was it certain that it was the particular observed flare that resulted in the CME, or could it have been a slighlty earlier flare? Bruce Jensen It took down the telegraph. *They saw the flare and 17 hours later the telegraph system freaked. First off, my apology for misreading your earlier post - I thought I read 17 minutes, not hours. I need more sleep I guess. Second, my question still remains - could the event that took down the telegraph have been an earlier unobserved event, and the second *observed* flare have been aimed such that it's effect would have been smaller or unnoticed? Despite my error, 17 hours is still mighty fast for that stuff to move. This is not a big deal, I'm just wondrin, 'sall... |
End of the road for shortwave?
bpnjensen wrote:
Second, my question still remains - could the event that took down the telegraph have been an earlier unobserved event, and the second *observed* flare have been aimed such that it's effect would have been smaller or unnoticed? Despite my error, 17 hours is still mighty fast for that stuff to move. This is not a big deal, I'm just wondrin, 'sall... Apparently we were already observing the Earth's magnetic field in 1859. Here's a timeline of the Carrington Event. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lar-superstorm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com