Mark Zenier wrote:

In article ,
maria wrote:
Regarding your statement that BBC does not broadcast on shortwave to NA,
I have been listening to them almost every night clear as a bell on
5975, so the next time, i will see if they say world service or specify
another location. sure sounds like it is aimed here.

Go to http://www.bbcworldservice.com and there's a huge chunk of their
web site dedicated to getting you their current schedule.

One mode of operation is to enter in your city, and they'll give you
a menu of the various outlets along with schedules for those outlets.
For cities in the USA, Shortwave comes at the bottom of the list (if
at all) after XM and Sirius Satellite and a list of local (usually NPR)
stations that rebroadcast it. Sometimes there's a note that they don't
target your area on shortwave but it can be received.

You can also get their transmitter schedules for the various target regions.
There's isn't on for North America, but there is one for the Caribbean.
(Which is what you're getting on 5975 and 11835, first from WYFR in Florida
and then (I think dxace said) the VOA site in Delano California.

Apparent sked:

11835 is via Okeechobee (WYFR) from 0000-0300
11835 is via Delano (VOA) from 0300-0500

dxAce

9825
is also a BBC evening frequency, targeted at South America).

The morning frequencies, (9740, 7160, 6195) are usually (depending on
the space weather) from Singapore aimed at the Philipines and Japan,
which we get on the second or third bounce.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:wdJWc.100538$Lj.85170@fed1read03...

"Frank Dresser" wrote

"Jack Painter" wrote in message

Software defined radio is opening entire new applications in
communications.


I think WinRadios were first sold over ten years ago. Other computer
controlled radios such as the R-71 and NRD-525 date from the late 80s.

Hi Frank - that's not software-defined radio at all. SDR is the frequency
and bandwidth control by computer logic that uses entire sections of
spectrum, with channel separation as small as 10hz, and has the potential
to
make 100,000 times the bandwidth available. It also has the potential to
really screw up the spectrum as we know it. It wll change things in a big
way, and the FCC has been working on ways to evaluate it in experimental
programs for a while now.



That sounds like spread spectrum radio. The military has been using it for
decades, and radio amateurs have been playing with it for about 20 years.
Yeah, I read something by some guy who claimed vast amounts of bandwidth
would be released if only every TV and radio system in the world would go to
spread spectrum. The concept sounds unworkable to me for most consumer
purposes. And I have a hard time believing there's a bandwidth crisis when
so much of the bandwidth such as the VHF lo band is so lightly used. A
fiber optic landline net would have virtually unlimited bandwidth, and seems
more practical to me. Not to mention the possibility that launching large
satellites might get cheaper.





And washing machines, btw, are using vastly new technology to use a
fraction
of the water formerly required; they no longer twist/agitate during
wash
and
use transmissions to literally spin things dry, reducing dryer energy
required.

Front load washing machines were always more water and energy efficient.
They date from the 50s, if not before. A common gag in the old
electronics
magazines of the early TV era involved someone who mistook a front
loader
for a round screen TV.

Here again, was not my example, but I wasn't specific, sorry. New top-load
washers that are computer controlled use a fraction of the water formerly
required, and no longer agitate to clean.

OK, I gotcha. Another article I read about fuzzy logic made those claims
for the new generation of washing machines. I think I read the article over
10 years ago, but I'm not completely sure. Supposedly, the washer would be
able to weigh the clothes, estimate how dirty the clothes are, and come up
with the best cycle for washing the clothes. The internal computer would not
only figure out how to wash the clothes better but also save water and
energy and needless wear and tear on the machine. Again, I'm skeptical
about the claims. If the savings are real, the most enthusiastic customers
for the new controls ought to be the commercial laundrys and laundromats.
My local laundromat looks like a fairly new installation, and there's no
indication there's anything special about the washing machines. I'd expect
there'd be some large sign in the place telling us what wonderful hi-tech
treatment our clothes were getting, all for the small price of a bunch of
quarters. There's not even a sticker on the machines reading "Washer Brain"
or something.


They can practically eliminate the
need for dry cleaning since all delicates can now be done in these new
machines. The energy savings from less water, less dryer time, and little
or
no dry cleaning make the $800-1,000 price tags a real bargain, paying for
themselves in a very short time (like 2-3 years). Whether they last 10
years
remains to be seen.


I'll let the laundrymat do the test drive on that one. When they decide
it's worth pulling out the hulking stainless steel Speed Queens and install
"Washer Brains", I'll be sure to share the news.


I strongly advise whole-house normal-mode (line to
neutral only) surge protection for homes that invest in these hi-tech
appliances, home entertainment's systems and communications equipment!


Surges happen, but in my limited repair experience, the most common failures
in modern electronics are dried up elecrolytics and solder joint failures.
I've fixed all sorts of odd things like flaky motherboards, including the
one I'm using now, just by resoldering the large solder joints. Such
repairs are cheap and kinda fun, but do not inspire much confidence in
hi-tech gizmos. Maybe the boards in the washing machines are built to a
better standard, but I honestly don't think anybody outside hospitals and
the military gives a damn about such stuff.

They're not your Father's Oldsmobile, and power-strip surge protection (a
misnomer in the first place) will not protect these equipments.

My mom had the Oldsmobile, I drove a 1963 Galaxie until 10 years ago. The
Galaxie was a good example of mature technology. The Galaxie, in good
condition, would be just as usable today as it was in 1963. Sure, modern
cars are somewhat safer, ride a bit better and get better gas mileage, but
there's not an overwhelming difference. There was far more automotive
progress in the 41 years between 1922 and 1963. A Model T, or most any
other car of that era, would be just about unusable in traffic today or
then.

I think that's the way it goes with just about any technological product.
Improvements come much quicker, and are far more significant, when the
product is new. Certainly that's been true with radios. There was were
many important changes between the radios of 1925 and 1935, but the changes
between 1915 and 1925 were even more significant. There have been a few
changes in radios in the last 10 years, but nothing which compares to the
early days of radio. The most significant change lately is just that
they're making radios even cheaper in China, now.


I will admit I haven't kept up with the latest in gee-whiz appliance
tech.
For all I know, marketers have decided we all want refrigerators which
need
remote controls and internet connected washing machines.

I see that G. Get out more Frank, there is some amazing techology to
look
at, even if it means putting up with the sale-pitch crap from appliance
dealers, lol.

Of course, I wasn't serious about the internet connected washing machine.
Somebody else is:

http://www.lge.co.uk/products/appliances/washing/

Jeez, even my smart-ass comments are behind the curve.

Future generations will determine if the first day of the internet connected
washing machine was as important as the day they yanked off the wringer and
put in a spinning drum.

This internet-access refrigerator doesn't mention a remote control, but how
could they make one with Built in stereo speakers, video camera, microphone,
MP3 player and TV tuner, without a remote?

http://www.lge.co.uk/products/appliances/refrigeration/

I'm sure it's happy new owners will most appreciate the refrigerator's:

"Self diagnostic system for highlighting faults"



Whose to say that shortwave radio may not one day be integrated as a
form
or
source of messaging into the internet-streams for use by cellphone
information systems? Or even in reverse as a method of backup
communications
when cell towers are not available?

The problems are obvious. SW bandwidth is usually less than 30 MHz, the
signals have world wide interference potential, and propagation is
unpredictable.

Probably true, that was just an off the cuff example of the many
possibilities that bandwidth has. It will certainly be important to most
industries and hopefully

Back in the 60s, lots of people thought we'd have our own personal jet
packs, commuter flights to the moon and home robots which looked just
like
cute actresses. Oh, well.

Remember when Ma Bell came out with the picture-phone in the early 70's?
They thought every home would have one. Turns out consumers thought it was
a
really stupid idea, and the techonolgy was shelved when no one bought into
it.. It's still a dumb idea today, lol, but it may have contributed to
other
ideas that were useful.


At one time, nearly all ships were sail powered. Steam power made sail
power obsolete. Sail power might be a back-up for steam power in some
ways,
but mostly it isn't all that useful for modern commerce or navies. That
hardly means sail power has disappeared. There are still plenty of
sailing
ships, and plenty of sailors for them. And you can be sure they these
sailors haven't been conscripted, impressed or Shanghai'ed. The crews
of
current sailing ships are boating hobbyists.

I see shortwave in a similar way. Most of the applications for
shortwave
can now be done in different ways, better ways. But the ionosphere is
still a wonderful natural resource, and will always be a playground for
radio hobbyists.

Frank Dresser

I agree, and I hope there is enough left to play in over the next decade
or
2.

Jack Painter

m II wrote:
J999w wrote:
As long as there's something out there besides static crashes to tune in,
shortwave listening will never die.

Microsoft does Static too?

I wish. If Microsoft did static, they'd corner the market and all other
static sources would stop; and they'd do it so badly, all radios would
be 80 dB quieter.

--
If Kerry can't cope with the "Republican Attack Machine",
how can he hope to deal with Al Qaeda?

Invented by actress Heddy Lamarr in World War II. See CDMA.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:18:03 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:wdJWc.100538$Lj.85170@fed1read03...

"Frank Dresser" wrote

"Jack Painter" wrote in message

Software defined radio is opening entire new applications in
communications.


I think WinRadios were first sold over ten years ago. Other computer
controlled radios such as the R-71 and NRD-525 date from the late 80s.

Hi Frank - that's not software-defined radio at all. SDR is the frequency
and bandwidth control by computer logic that uses entire sections of
spectrum, with channel separation as small as 10hz, and has the potential
to
make 100,000 times the bandwidth available. It also has the potential to
really screw up the spectrum as we know it. It wll change things in a big
way, and the FCC has been working on ways to evaluate it in experimental
programs for a while now.



That sounds like spread spectrum radio. The military has been using it for
decades, and radio amateurs have been playing with it for about 20 years.
Yeah, I read something by some guy who claimed vast amounts of bandwidth
would be released if only every TV and radio system in the world would go to
spread spectrum. The concept sounds unworkable to me for most consumer
purposes. And I have a hard time believing there's a bandwidth crisis when
so much of the bandwidth such as the VHF lo band is so lightly used. A
fiber optic landline net would have virtually unlimited bandwidth, and seems
more practical to me. Not to mention the possibility that launching large
satellites might get cheaper.





And washing machines, btw, are using vastly new technology to use a
fraction
of the water formerly required; they no longer twist/agitate during
wash
and
use transmissions to literally spin things dry, reducing dryer energy
required.

Front load washing machines were always more water and energy efficient.
They date from the 50s, if not before. A common gag in the old
electronics
magazines of the early TV era involved someone who mistook a front
loader
for a round screen TV.

Here again, was not my example, but I wasn't specific, sorry. New top-load
washers that are computer controlled use a fraction of the water formerly
required, and no longer agitate to clean.

OK, I gotcha. Another article I read about fuzzy logic made those claims
for the new generation of washing machines. I think I read the article over
10 years ago, but I'm not completely sure. Supposedly, the washer would be
able to weigh the clothes, estimate how dirty the clothes are, and come up
with the best cycle for washing the clothes. The internal computer would not
only figure out how to wash the clothes better but also save water and
energy and needless wear and tear on the machine. Again, I'm skeptical
about the claims. If the savings are real, the most enthusiastic customers
for the new controls ought to be the commercial laundrys and laundromats.
My local laundromat looks like a fairly new installation, and there's no
indication there's anything special about the washing machines. I'd expect
there'd be some large sign in the place telling us what wonderful hi-tech
treatment our clothes were getting, all for the small price of a bunch of
quarters. There's not even a sticker on the machines reading "Washer Brain"
or something.


They can practically eliminate the
need for dry cleaning since all delicates can now be done in these new
machines. The energy savings from less water, less dryer time, and little
or
no dry cleaning make the $800-1,000 price tags a real bargain, paying for
themselves in a very short time (like 2-3 years). Whether they last 10
years
remains to be seen.


I'll let the laundrymat do the test drive on that one. When they decide
it's worth pulling out the hulking stainless steel Speed Queens and install
"Washer Brains", I'll be sure to share the news.


I strongly advise whole-house normal-mode (line to
neutral only) surge protection for homes that invest in these hi-tech
appliances, home entertainment's systems and communications equipment!


Surges happen, but in my limited repair experience, the most common failures
in modern electronics are dried up elecrolytics and solder joint failures.
I've fixed all sorts of odd things like flaky motherboards, including the
one I'm using now, just by resoldering the large solder joints. Such
repairs are cheap and kinda fun, but do not inspire much confidence in
hi-tech gizmos. Maybe the boards in the washing machines are built to a
better standard, but I honestly don't think anybody outside hospitals and
the military gives a damn about such stuff.

They're not your Father's Oldsmobile, and power-strip surge protection (a
misnomer in the first place) will not protect these equipments.

My mom had the Oldsmobile, I drove a 1963 Galaxie until 10 years ago. The
Galaxie was a good example of mature technology. The Galaxie, in good
condition, would be just as usable today as it was in 1963. Sure, modern
cars are somewhat safer, ride a bit better and get better gas mileage, but
there's not an overwhelming difference. There was far more automotive
progress in the 41 years between 1922 and 1963. A Model T, or most any
other car of that era, would be just about unusable in traffic today or
then.

I think that's the way it goes with just about any technological product.
Improvements come much quicker, and are far more significant, when the
product is new. Certainly that's been true with radios. There was were
many important changes between the radios of 1925 and 1935, but the changes
between 1915 and 1925 were even more significant. There have been a few
changes in radios in the last 10 years, but nothing which compares to the
early days of radio. The most significant change lately is just that
they're making radios even cheaper in China, now.


I will admit I haven't kept up with the latest in gee-whiz appliance
tech.
For all I know, marketers have decided we all want refrigerators which
need
remote controls and internet connected washing machines.

I see that G. Get out more Frank, there is some amazing techology to
look
at, even if it means putting up with the sale-pitch crap from appliance
dealers, lol.

Of course, I wasn't serious about the internet connected washing machine.
Somebody else is:

http://www.lge.co.uk/products/appliances/washing/

Jeez, even my smart-ass comments are behind the curve.

Future generations will determine if the first day of the internet connected
washing machine was as important as the day they yanked off the wringer and
put in a spinning drum.

This internet-access refrigerator doesn't mention a remote control, but how
could they make one with Built in stereo speakers, video camera, microphone,
MP3 player and TV tuner, without a remote?

http://www.lge.co.uk/products/appliances/refrigeration/

I'm sure it's happy new owners will most appreciate the refrigerator's:

"Self diagnostic system for highlighting faults"



Whose to say that shortwave radio may not one day be integrated as a
form
or
source of messaging into the internet-streams for use by cellphone
information systems? Or even in reverse as a method of backup
communications
when cell towers are not available?

The problems are obvious. SW bandwidth is usually less than 30 MHz, the
signals have world wide interference potential, and propagation is
unpredictable.

Probably true, that was just an off the cuff example of the many
possibilities that bandwidth has. It will certainly be important to most
industries and hopefully

Back in the 60s, lots of people thought we'd have our own personal jet
packs, commuter flights to the moon and home robots which looked just
like
cute actresses. Oh, well.

Remember when Ma Bell came out with the picture-phone in the early 70's?
They thought every home would have one. Turns out consumers thought it was
a
really stupid idea, and the techonolgy was shelved when no one bought into
it.. It's still a dumb idea today, lol, but it may have contributed to
other
ideas that were useful.


At one time, nearly all ships were sail powered. Steam power made sail
power obsolete. Sail power might be a back-up for steam power in some
ways,
but mostly it isn't all that useful for modern commerce or navies. That
hardly means sail power has disappeared. There are still plenty of
sailing
ships, and plenty of sailors for them. And you can be sure they these
sailors haven't been conscripted, impressed or Shanghai'ed. The crews
of
current sailing ships are boating hobbyists.

I see shortwave in a similar way. Most of the applications for
shortwave
can now be done in different ways, better ways. But the ionosphere is
still a wonderful natural resource, and will always be a playground for
radio hobbyists.

Frank Dresser

I agree, and I hope there is enough left to play in over the next decade
or
2.

Jack Painter

"David" wrote in message
...
Invented by actress Heddy Lamarr in World War II. See CDMA.



Yeah, Hedy Lamarr and some technically oriented composer got a patent for
frequency-hopping, as they called it. But this pop-up says
"frequency-shifting" was already being discussed by the Germans in 1939,
before the Lamarr patent:

http://www.inventions.org/culture/fe...ups/other.html

The pop-up also mentions a couple of other real difficulies for controlling
torpedoes by radio.

Anyway, it's obvious the Navy didn't think frequency hopping was much of a
military secret. Otherwise, they would have bought it up, and pledged
everyone involved to silence, rather than letting it get listed with all the
other public documents at the US Patent Office.

There's a more involved cite he


" So who did what? We don't know. We do know, however, that the concept of
frequency hopping has had a long history. David Kahn, author of The
Codebreakers, writes in his article "Cryptology and the Origins of Spread
Spectrum," that in 1929 a Polish engineer Leonard Danilewicz, proposed to
the Polish army a system for secret radio telegraphy, which he later mourned
"unfortunately did not win acceptance, as it was a truly barbaric idea
consisting of constant changes of transmitter frequency." In the 1930s a
Swiss inventor, Gustav Guanella, proposed a similar idea and in 1935 two
Telefunken engineers Paul Kotowski and Kurt Dannehl applied for a patent for
a device to hide voice signals under a "broadband noiselike signal produced
by a rotating generator.""

" During World War II spread spectrum devices were already in
action, on both sides. They were used mostly in radar, where synchronization
of the transmitter and receiver is not a problem (because transmitter and
receiver are at the same location). The most famous use of frequency hopping
during the war was the ultrasecret SIGSALY* system, which in 1944 scrambled
the telephone conversations between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill. It was the first absolutely unbreakable scrambling system.
SIGSALY's workings were far too complex to describe in detail here. Roughly
speaking, SIGSALY first sampled the amplitude level (loudness) of Churchill
and Roosevelt's voices and "quantized" them. Today we would say the system
effectively digitized the voices. It next added a randomly generated number
to each sample, scrambling the voice levels. The now random intensities were
broadcast across the Atlantic by FM radio, which converts every amplitude
level to a different frequency. Because all this took place in a totally
unpredictable fashion the message was impossible to crack. "

Near the conclusion of the article:

" This, more plausibly, is the true evolutionary trunk of spread-spectrum
technology. The fact is, secret communication was invented in secret, and
that a movie star has become enshrined as its originator is a bit of
only-in-America irony. "


http://godel.ph.utexas.edu/~tonyr/spread_spectrum.html


Frank Dresser