|
INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING?
INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING?
I am getting back into SW from a ten year absence. I will be purchasing a new, nice quality radio, in the next few weeks. The reason for my renewed interest is that I purchased a YB FR-200 for Hurricane Charley. I forgot how I enjoyed SW. However, after surfing the Internet for a wile, I was surprised (not really) to see limited to no growth in SW receivers. My last Passport book is from 1995, and I found that in 2004, the receivers from the 1995 book are the ones still available, with few new entries. It is obvious, the advent of the Internet in the last ten years has changed drastically, the available of worldwide audio and video programming. With that said, what is not available on the Internet, that is available on SW? Let me preference by stating, that I understand SW as a hobby, and I also understand that the challenge of pulling in programming from a radio is a lot more rewarding than point and click Real Audio or Windows Media streams. However, for fun, over the last few days, I would find a signal/program on my little FR-200, and then, I would find same streamed audio on the Internet. I had a 100% success rate, and the Internet stream is superior, as there is no interference. Maybe the FR-200 only pulls in the major stations, and that is why I found everything, however, is there any worthwhile programming not streamed live, or available as archive on the Internet. To further tilt program availability on the Internet, there are hundreds of websites that make available, professional model SW setups, that Internet uses can directly control. I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III |
Thurston Howell III wrote: INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING? I am getting back into SW from a ten year absence. I will be purchasing a new, nice quality radio, in the next few weeks. The reason for my renewed interest is that I purchased a YB FR-200 for Hurricane Charley. I forgot how I enjoyed SW. However, after surfing the Internet for a wile, I was surprised (not really) to see limited to no growth in SW receivers. My last Passport book is from 1995, and I found that in 2004, the receivers from the 1995 book are the ones still available, with few new entries. It is obvious, the advent of the Internet in the last ten years has changed drastically, the available of worldwide audio and video programming. With that said, what is not available on the Internet, that is available on SW? Let me preference by stating, that I understand SW as a hobby, and I also understand that the challenge of pulling in programming from a radio is a lot more rewarding than point and click Real Audio or Windows Media streams. However, for fun, over the last few days, I would find a signal/program on my little FR-200, and then, I would find same streamed audio on the Internet. I had a 100% success rate, and the Internet stream is superior, as there is no interference. Maybe the FR-200 only pulls in the major stations, and that is why I found everything, however, is there any worthwhile programming not streamed live, or available as archive on the Internet. To further tilt program availability on the Internet, there are hundreds of websites that make available, professional model SW setups, that Internet uses can directly control. I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III I was first involved with this esoteric hobby back in 1966 or so, and as I recall, there were folks back then who said that it was dying. Guess what? It's still here and will be what you and I make it out to be. dxAce |
As long as there's something out there besides static crashes to tune in,
shortwave listening will never die. jw k9rzz |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:33:10 -0700, Thurston Howell III wrote:
I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III No it's not. What happens when your cable,DSL or power goes down? The BBC has stopped broadcasting via shortwave to North America but we still pick it up through their other targets. This still ****es me off personally. There is a TON of things on shortwave radio. Get one and see for yourself! Have fun! Tom |
"Thurston Howell III" wrote in message om... INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING? [snip] I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Traditional International broadcasting isn't dying, but it is declining. The decline has practically nothing to do with the internet. The decline is happening because: Governments don't think shortwave gives them much for their money. Mark Byford, or whoever, said as much when he said the BBC was targeting opinion formers and decision makers. Putting international programming on an internet feed will save some money on transmitter costs, but the cuts go far further than that. Internet or not, programs are gone and languages are gone. The governments which are cutting back don't think whatever listeners they have are worth paying for. However, some broadcasters such as the BBC and DW are able to sell programming to US broadcasters. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? Some stop, others start. Governments may be losing interest in SW radio, but there are people who actually WANT to be on SW radio. They WANT to be on SW radio enough to pay to be on!! Sure, some of them may be con artists or wierdos, but I find them to be a more interesting bunch then the usual government radio types. So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? Things change. International broadcasting started as a way for countries such as England or Holland to broadcast information to their people in their colonies. The propaganda era ran from WW2 to the end of the Cold War. Now, the Special Knowledge folk are ascendant. I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III Good luck! Frank Dresser |
|
"Thurston Howell III" wrote in message om... INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING? I am getting back into SW from a ten year absence. I will be purchasing a new, nice quality radio, in the next few weeks. The reason for my renewed interest is that I purchased a YB FR-200 for Hurricane Charley. I forgot how I enjoyed SW. However, after surfing the Internet for a wile, I was surprised (not really) to see limited to no growth in SW receivers. My last Passport book is from 1995, and I found that in 2004, the receivers from the 1995 book are the ones still available, with few new entries. It is obvious, the advent of the Internet in the last ten years has changed drastically, the available of worldwide audio and video programming. With that said, what is not available on the Internet, that is available on SW? Let me preference by stating, that I understand SW as a hobby, and I also understand that the challenge of pulling in programming from a radio is a lot more rewarding than point and click Real Audio or Windows Media streams. However, for fun, over the last few days, I would find a signal/program on my little FR-200, and then, I would find same streamed audio on the Internet. I had a 100% success rate, and the Internet stream is superior, as there is no interference. Maybe the FR-200 only pulls in the major stations, and that is why I found everything, however, is there any worthwhile programming not streamed live, or available as archive on the Internet. To further tilt program availability on the Internet, there are hundreds of websites that make available, professional model SW setups, that Internet uses can directly control. I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III I don't think sw radio will ever be "dead". Some of the big broadcasters have discontinued service in certain languages like English, but they still transmit in other languages. Reason being, the entire world, especially the third world is not yet wired up for the internet and probably wont be for an indefinite amount of time. Also... Internet communications can be administered and BLOCKED by governments. Although you can jam a shortwave broadcast, you cant always be successful at jamming everything. So, shortwave is still a great way to get information out to people that are living under some lord high dictatorship. Aside from that, as far as I know, there are new broadcasters getting into the game all the time. In the US, you also have an entire host of the "domestic" broadcasters that want to be on shortwave regardless of the internet. They range from the religious programs to the "conspiracy" guys to the "alternative news" guys. I cant tell you how many of those "conspiracy" guys say... "keep your sw radio handy 'cause the internet is going down" LOL. For the most part, they are off the wall, but just as much fun as The Three Stooges. Sometimes some of the "alternative" news guys actually have some good stories too. So... There is indeed a decline of English service of major broadcasters, but there is still and always will be PLENTY of stuff to listen to. Not to mention...Hams, utility, Pirates.... I think the future of communication isn't the internet. IMO, I'd say in twenty years or so, may be sooner... EVERYTHING is going to be wireless and coming off of satellites. There will be a net of communication satellites covering the Earth built by... say... Microsoft or some other huge company that will handle... Television, radio, computer network, telephone... I really think it is all going to be gobbled up by one company that will become the world wide communications provider. They will be the phone company, cable TV company and internet provider all built into one HUGE institution. It sounds like science fiction stuff, but I think that is the way things are going to go. STILL... Even if everything does go wireless, you'll still have radio as a back up for some communications in case of a huge x class flare comes along and wipes out the satellite network.... So... again... sw radio will never be dead... Michael |
maria wrote: Tom Randy wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:33:10 -0700, Thurston Howell III wrote: I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III No it's not. What happens when your cable,DSL or power goes down? The BBC has stopped broadcasting via shortwave to North America but we still pick it up through their other targets. This still ****es me off personally. There is a TON of things on shortwave radio. Get one and see for yourself! Have fun! Tom 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. Yes, it may indeed sound that way, but they no longer 'specifically' target the USA. They target the 'Americas', but no longer the USA. Indeed, it is still the 'BBC World Service'. dxAce |
Tom Randy wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:33:10 -0700, Thurston Howell III wrote: I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III No it's not. What happens when your cable,DSL or power goes down? The BBC has stopped broadcasting via shortwave to North America but we still pick it up through their other targets. This still ****es me off personally. There is a TON of things on shortwave radio. Get one and see for yourself! Have fun! Tom 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. maria |
sw won't die, but xm radio might give it a rub for it's money
|
"Thurston Howell III" wrote in message om... INTERNET RADIO V. SHORT-WAVE - IS SW DYING? I am getting back into SW from a ten year absence. I will be purchasing a new, nice quality radio, in the next few weeks. The reason for my renewed interest is that I purchased a YB FR-200 for Hurricane Charley. I forgot how I enjoyed SW. However, after surfing the Internet for a wile, I was surprised (not really) to see limited to no growth in SW receivers. My last Passport book is from 1995, and I found that in 2004, the receivers from the 1995 book are the ones still available, with few new entries. Radio is a mature technology. There's not much difference between the current radios and the radios of ten years ago. But there hasn't been much change in refrigerators or washing machines lately, either. It is obvious, the advent of the Internet in the last ten years has changed drastically, the available of worldwide audio and video programming. With that said, what is not available on the Internet, that is available on SW? Let me preference by stating, that I understand SW as a hobby, and I also understand that the challenge of pulling in programming from a radio is a lot more rewarding than point and click Real Audio or Windows Media streams. However, for fun, over the last few days, I would find a signal/program on my little FR-200, and then, I would find same streamed audio on the Internet. I had a 100% success rate, and the Internet stream is superior, as there is no interference. Actually, satellites and television is the biggest change in public diplomacy. TV programming can be produced for little more than radio programming now. Governments and networks can use satellites to distribute programming at low cost. When government spokesmen want to get the word out now, they get it on TV and give it to the news networks. The message will trickle down to radio and the internet later. And that message will usually be just excerpts from a TV speech or TV press conference. Maybe the FR-200 only pulls in the major stations, and that is why I found everything, however, is there any worthwhile programming not streamed live, or available as archive on the Internet. I suppose that depends on what "worthwhile" means. There's still number stations, which must be worth something to somebody. I don't think any of the remaining tropical band stations stream on the internet. The pirates don't, although some of their programming is distributed on CDs. Brother Stair and Alex Jones say they are streamed on the internet, but I only tried it once, and it wasn't working at that time. A large amount of the worthwhile programming is gone, due to changing priorities and budget cuts. To further tilt program availability on the Internet, there are hundreds of websites that make available, professional model SW setups, that Internet uses can directly control. I understand that poor countries do not widely have access to the Internet, but US access is far reaching. Will and/or have programmers stop targeting the US by SW? So I ask, is SW dying a slow death? I look forward to a nice discussion, Thurston Howell III |
Sirius carries way more International broadcasting than XM.
They have WRN, as well as the BBC. On 23 Aug 2004 00:40:10 GMT, (Super ****ed Dad) wrote: sw won't die, but xm radio might give it a rub for it's money |
"Frank Dresser" wrote Radio is a mature technology. There's not much difference between the current radios and the radios of ten years ago. But there hasn't been much change in refrigerators or washing machines lately, either. Hi Frank, your point is understood, but not supported by that argument - advancements in technology are affecting everything, especially radio. Software defined radio is opening entire new applications in communications. 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. These are just examples that technology continues to advance at an amazing rate, and it is impossible to predict how far or what effect this will have on a given process or media, etc. now, they get it on TV and give it to the news networks. The message will trickle down to radio and the internet later. And that message will usually be just excerpts from a TV speech or TV press conference. 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 interface between technlogy and the free market make anything possible, and only the timing remains the deciding factor. When we want something, it's soon there for us. Sometimes technologies "hang on" even when they seem outdated, because they are popular, offer an alternative form of entertainment, and/or have a backup capability that would be too costly to replace, once abandoned. Jack |
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. 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 |
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? mike |
In article YVyWc.49072$X12.20498@edtnps84,
m II wrote: J999w wrote: As long as there's something out there besides static crashes to tune in, shortwave listening will never die. Microsoft does Static too? They have the patent rights on digital static, which they will vigorously defend with their army of lawyers so don't get any ideas. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Jack Painter" wrote in message news:%BoWc.8655$Ka6.1867@okepread03... "Frank Dresser" wrote Radio is a mature technology. There's not much difference between the current radios and the radios of ten years ago. But there hasn't been much change in refrigerators or washing machines lately, either. Hi Frank, your point is understood, but not supported by that argument - advancements in technology are affecting everything, especially radio. Certainly not everything, not even the most expensive thing for most people. Homes are built the mostly the same way, and using mostly the same materials as they were fifty years ago. Sure, there's some detail differences in construction and matereials, but not much. 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. 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. Front loaders weren't common until recently because water and energy efficiency weren't so important to most buyers, especially since good, reliable top loaders were available at a much lower price. There has been an unfortunate spread of electronic controls on what should be simple appliances, but this trend started in the late 70s. I had a neighbor who has a 20 something year old high tech refrigerator which a couple of qualified repairmen said can't be repaired at a reasonable cost because the electronic controls are expensive and now almost unavailable. I might given board repair at the component level a shot, but I didn't want to deal with it. My neighbor was given a cool 1950 era Kenmore which is controlled by a good ol' bulb and tube thermostat which might outlast us all. 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. These are just examples that technology continues to advance at an amazing rate, and it is impossible to predict how far or what effect this will have on a given process or media, etc. now, they get it on TV and give it to the news networks. The message will trickle down to radio and the internet later. And that message will usually be just excerpts from a TV speech or TV press conference. 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. The interface between technology and the free market make anything possible, and only the timing remains the deciding factor. When we want something, it's soon there for us. 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. Sometimes technologies "hang on" even when they seem outdated, because they are popular, offer an alternative form of entertainment, and/or have a backup capability that would be too costly to replace, once abandoned. Jack 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 |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 04:54:03 GMT, Telamon
wrote: In article YVyWc.49072$X12.20498@edtnps84, 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? They have the patent rights on digital static, which they will vigorously defend with their army of lawyers so don't get any ideas. LOL ! |
David wrote in message . ..
Sirius carries way more International broadcasting than XM. They have WRN, as well as the BBC. On 23 Aug 2004 00:40:10 GMT, (Super ****ed Dad) wrote: sw won't die, but xm radio might give it a rub for it's money I think this may be part of what guarantees the survival of SW. Sirius DOES have more. In fact, it has vastly more....so much more that the only way you're going to end up listening to, say, Voice of Turkey is if you're on a mission to hear it even before you turn on your radio. Same with the internet. Denmark may have discontinued their shortwave broadcasts in favor of 'broadcasts' over the internet, but I personally don't know anyone who's ever seen one. My guess is that their service is now targeted almost exclusively at Danes abroad or something like that, but this is precisely the kind of decision broadcasters have to make. When Denmark discontinued its broadcasts, it basically said "I don't want this audience over here. Instead, I want this other, very different sort of audience over there, on the internet." I don't think things look so bad for SW. |
"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. 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. 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 strongly advise whole-house normal-mode (line to neutral only) surge protection for homes that invest in these hi-tech appliances, home entertainments systems and communications equipment! They're not your Father's Oldsmobile, and power-strip surge protection (a misnomer in the first place) will not protect these equipments. 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. 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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com