160m Open !!!!!
Cutie Boy
160m was open yesterday.
I was hearing a bunch of stations near 1.82-1.85 MHz.
I am using random wire (about 60m long) for the antenna and both RX
and TX work very well.
Happy Dxing !!!!
______________________________________________________________________
Visit this excellent site
why code has no importance to the amateur radio today:
http://www.nocode.org
License Suggestion: http://www.radiotelephone.net/no-code/
Joli Garçon (également connu comme M@S@)
Indicatif d'appel de radioamateur: VA2QRU & VE7JPN
Étudient @ Informatique et Mathématiques d'Université McGill
Montréal, Québec, Canada
CÉ: cu...@radiotelephone.net.ham
URL : http://www.radiotelephone.net (Universel)
http://www.radiotelephone.net/amateur/ (Radio)
http://www.geocities.com/~masataka/mcgill.htm (Université McGill)
______________________________________________________________________
***Enlevez l' " .ham " pour répondre.***
***Please remove "ham" to reply.***
ATTENTION: Je n'achèterai pas ou réponse aucun produit des CÉS non sollicités!!
Bryan King
The ARRL 160 meter contest is this weekend which would account for some
increased band activity.
73's
Bryan
--
-.. . -.- .- .---- ..-. --.- - -..-. ..
KA1FQT
Grid Square FN42gv
Cutie Boy <cu...@radiotelephone.net.ham> wrote in article
<34cb710...@news.total.net>...
John A. Figliozzi
I'm hearing a few CW stations on 160m tonight (Monday). Forgive my
ignorance, but is this a ham band for CW or are these utilities or
something else I'm hearing?
Thanks and 73,
John
Will White
Gary Coffman wrote:
> All amateur bands but one permit CW (OOK Morse) operation.
> 160m isn't partitioned (formally) into separate voice and data
> segments as most other HF bands are. Any mode can be used
> on any part of 160m. (There are voluntary bandplans in use,
> however.) So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
I saw some video on PBS recently (last month), can't say what show, of
Russian military training communications ppl in Morse, using straight
keys! What band *doesn't* permit CW operation?
Will White
Gary Coffman
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:25:36 -0500, "John A. Figliozzi"
<jfig...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>I'm hearing a few CW stations on 160m tonight (Monday). Forgive my
>ignorance, but is this a ham band for CW or are these utilities or
>something else I'm hearing?
All amateur bands but one permit CW (OOK Morse) operation.
160m isn't partitioned (formally) into separate voice and data
segments as most other HF bands are. Any mode can be used
on any part of 160m. (There are voluntary bandplans in use,
however.) So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Chuck Till
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:25:36 -0500, "John A. Figliozzi"
> <jfig...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >I'm hearing a few CW stations on 160m tonight (Monday). Forgive my
> >ignorance, but is this a ham band for CW or are these utilities or
> >something else I'm hearing?
>
> All amateur bands but one permit CW (OOK Morse) operation.
> 160m isn't partitioned (formally) into separate voice and data
> segments as most other HF bands are. Any mode can be used
> on any part of 160m. (There are voluntary bandplans in use,
> however.) So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
When I had a ham license 25 years ago, 160m was severely
restricted in some areas by power and frequency. When were
these limits removed?
Dan Finn
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:25:36 -0500, "John A. Figliozzi"
> <jfig...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >I'm hearing a few CW stations on 160m tonight (Monday). Forgive my
> >ignorance, but is this a ham band for CW or are these utilities or
> >something else I'm hearing?
>
> All amateur bands but one permit CW (OOK Morse) operation.
> 160m isn't partitioned (formally) into separate voice and data
> segments as most other HF bands are. Any mode can be used
> on any part of 160m. (There are voluntary bandplans in use,
> however.) So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
>
it can be a more difficult task to communicate via CW but people are not
doing it just because they prefer low technology over the so called
'whiz-bang' digital stuff; 160m can be a particularly difficult band to
use (high QRN, small antennas with low ERP etc.). CW makes it easier to
'get through' under poor band conditions or equipment limitations etc.
when nothing else will. CW is still used extensively on the amateur
bands. A few digital affecianados hate to admit it, but that statement
is, for all practical purposes, true. Licensees on the ham bands need to
demonstrate the capability to make maximum use of the spectrum resources
entrusted (licensed) to them, thus they must know CW to use the bands
under poor condx. They are not 'required' to ever actually use it, but
most end up using it substantially, especially on the lower bands
(40/80/160m), when they discover how useful this old reliable mode
really is!
Dan Finn
KR4AJ
Dan O'Connell
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Dan Finn wrote:
> Gary Coffman wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:25:36 -0500, "John A. Figliozzi"
> > <jfig...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > >I'm hearing a few CW stations on 160m tonight (Monday). Forgive my
> > >ignorance, but is this a ham band for CW or are these utilities or
> > >something else I'm hearing?
> >
> I might add that there is often good reason to use OOK CW on 160m. True,
> it can be a more difficult task to communicate via CW but people are not
> doing it just because they prefer low technology over the so called
> 'whiz-bang' digital stuff; 160m can be a particularly difficult band to
> use (high QRN, small antennas with low ERP etc.). CW makes it easier to
> 'get through' under poor band conditions or equipment limitations etc.
> when nothing else will. CW is still used extensively on the amateur
> bands.
> Dan Finn
> KR4AJ
equally true on VHF.I've worked many countries on 50 Mhz CW that I just
wouldn't havn't been able to on ssb. Same goes for EME (moon bounce),
Aurora, etc etc. It just plain works under adverse conditions! Dan WA7TDZ
Oregon
DoD COMM
Cutie Boy wrote:
>
> 160m was open yesterday.
>
> I was hearing a bunch of stations near 1.82-1.85 MHz.
>
> I am using random wire (about 60m long) for the antenna and both RX
> and TX work very well.
>
> Happy Dxing !!!!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Visit this excellent site
> why code has no importance to the amateur radio today:
> http://www.nocode.org
....160M is open every day for me because I use CW!
Isn't it great? !
Walt.
CW FOREVER!
DoD COMM
> So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
>
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV
Oh Gary, you are so very much in the dark!
If you really believe this, then you have no
idea of what transmissions are taking place
in the world. As much as people want to get
rid of CW...it will NEVER die. It is the ONLY
mode that will get through when the going gets rough.
Walt.
Tim Hynde
DoD COMM wrote:
Walt I hardly think Gary is in the dark, your correct about it's
ability to 'get through' under heavy QRM/N but the going doesn't get too
rough on a microwave link to a satellite, no stumpjumpers up there or
liberty net to QRM your call for help, so while CW is still in wide
use in the amateur community. It is fading fast in the commercial
arena. All you have to do is read the trade rags. Morse is being
dropped by all kinds of commercial services.
Tim Hynde, KA8DDZ
Quote of the century:
"... there was no radio license 200 years ago... so is
it possible to transmit anything today ?? no... same concept." -
Cutie Boy, 98
or...@xyznycap.rr.com
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:30:18 -0800, DoD COMM <x...@nb.net> wrote:
>> So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
>> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
>> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
>> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
>>
>> Gary
>> Gary Coffman KE4ZV
>
>Oh Gary, you are so very much in the dark!
>If you really believe this, then you have no
>idea of what transmissions are taking place
>in the world. As much as people want to get
>rid of CW...it will NEVER die. It is the ONLY
>mode that will get through when the going gets rough.
>
>Walt.
Yeah, right. If it's so efficient, why is it being phased out all over
the world except in the ARS? You and the ARRL are in the dark.
--
Larry Gamache N2YMJ
To reply, remove the
xyz from my address.
Will White
or...@xyznycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> Yeah, right. If it's so efficient, why is it being phased out all over
> the world except in the ARS? You and the ARRL are in the dark.
It is being phased out because it is slooooow. Can't send the whole NY
Times CW in a few milliseconds. Technically, CW may be pretty primitive,
but the question I want answered has to do with content. Most of the
"information" I find on the Web and on TV, cable, etc. is not worth the
time. In our culture it is 'faster,faster,more,more.' Less is more. Just
ask him ;)
--Will White
Cutie Boy
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 01:06:05 -0700, Will White <will....@asu.edu>
wrote:
> In our culture it is 'faster,faster,more,more.'
> Less is more.
^^^^^^^^^^
> Just
>ask him ;)
>--Will White
Use 286 instead of Pentium. Less is more. ;-)
______________________________________________________________________
Visit this excellent site
why code has no importance to the amateur radio today:
http://www.nocode.org
DoD COMM
Tim Hynde wrote:
>
> DoD COMM wrote:
>
> > > So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
> > > operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
> > > still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
> > > abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > > Gary Coffman KE4ZV
> >
> > Oh Gary, you are so very much in the dark!
> > If you really believe this, then you have no
> > idea of what transmissions are taking place
> > in the world. As much as people want to get
> > rid of CW...it will NEVER die. It is the ONLY
> > mode that will get through when the going gets rough.
> >
> > Walt.
>
> ability to 'get through' under heavy QRM/N but the going doesn't get too
> rough on a microwave link to a satellite, no stumpjumpers up there or
> liberty net to QRM your call for help, so while CW is still in wide
> use in the amateur community. It is fading fast in the commercial
> arena. All you have to do is read the trade rags. Morse is being
> dropped by all kinds of commercial services.
>
> Tim Hynde, KA8DDZ
>
Well Tim, I wasn't really talking about the Amateur Radio
community. Forget about what you read in the "rags". CW
is still very much used my the U.S. Military and other U.S.
Government agencys and commercial services as well.
Walt.
DoD COMM
Will White wrote:
>
> or...@xyznycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah, right. If it's so efficient, why is it being phased out all over
> > the world except in the ARS? You and the ARRL are in the dark.
>
> It is being phased out because it is slooooow. Can't send the whole NY
> Times CW in a few milliseconds. Technically, CW may be pretty primitive,
> but the question I want answered has to do with content. Most of the
> "information" I find on the Web and on TV, cable, etc. is not worth the
> ask him ;)
>
> --Will White
...The lights are on but nobodys home!
Gary Coffman
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:37:41 -0500, Chuck Till <ct...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>When I had a ham license 25 years ago, 160m was severely
>restricted in some areas by power and frequency. When were
>these limits removed?
Shortly after Loran A service was discontinued. I don't remember
the exact date, but Loran A has been gone for a long time.
Gary Coffman
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:30:18 -0800, DoD COMM <x...@nb.net> wrote:
>> So it is very likely that what you heard was amateur
>> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
>> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
>> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
>>
>> Gary
>> Gary Coffman KE4ZV
>
>Oh Gary, you are so very much in the dark!
>If you really believe this, then you have no
>idea of what transmissions are taking place
>in the world. As much as people want to get
>rid of CW...it will NEVER die. It is the ONLY
>mode that will get through when the going gets rough.
Ah, so I suppose that's why NASA uses if for deep
space probes. That's what all those headphone
wearing guys are doing in mission control. NOT!
When the going gets *really* rough, like when Voyager is
reporting back from beyond the edge of the solar system
or when you need to communicate with a deeply submerged
nuclear submarine, uniform symbol length codes and fully
voiced modulations are used. That's what gets through when
nothing else will. In fact it gets through when the human ear
detects no signal at all in the noise.
And this isn't some new space age idea. Nyquist proved it
in 1928, and Shannon fleshed out the concepts in 1948. What
is somewhat new is that we can do it with a few cheap chips
today while it took a room full of vacuum tubes in the old days.
CW isn't worthless. As is commonly noted, it beats analog SSB,
but that is faint praise indeed. When it comes to weak signals in
noise, CW doesn't hold a candle to uniform symbol length codes
sent with a fully voiced modulation. An amateur level example
is Coherent, which uses ASCII sent via BPSK. It works on lower
HF under conditions where OOK Morse utterly fails. And Coherent
is extremely simple and primitive, it doesn't even employ FEC.
The DSP is done in software on a computer as primitive as
an original 4.77 MHz IBM XT (a Z80H could do it without
breaking a sweat if anyone wanted to embed Coherent in
hardware). No special, exotic, or expensive DSP hardware
is required. (Though DSP is no longer exotic or expensive.)
Much better techniques exist, and are in everyday use by amateurs
and non-amateurs. Clover 2000 is an example of the latter. It has
displaced much of the HF maritime CW communications traffic
which hasn't moved to satellite. It is small enough, simple enough,
and cheap enough that any HF radio equipped vessel can afford to
use it. That a few third world flagged vessels still don't is testimony
to their backwardness, not to their perspicacity.
CW will probably be around for years to come in a hobbyist role,
for those who do not wish to do better, but its days as a mission
critical communications method are rapidly drawing to a close
precisely because it *isn't* the mode that gets through when
nothing else will.
RCrusoe
In article <34cf6dad....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net
(Gary Coffman) writes:
>
Much better techniques exist, and are in everyday use by amateurs
and
>non-amateurs. Clover 2000 is an example of the latter. It has
displaced much
>of the HF maritime CW communications traffic
which hasn't moved to satellite.
>It is small enough, simple enough,
and cheap enough that any HF radio
>equipped vessel can afford to
use it. That a few third world flagged vessels
>still don't is testimony
to their backwardness, not to their perspicacity.
I have heard this to be true, Gary, but I haven't seen it yet. (Clover taking
over from CW). Most HF maritime traffic is actually SITOR. Now I am not sure
about the telex protocol over INMARSAT... I don't know, but that could be
Clover for all I know. I have been sailing for quite a while and I haven't
seen a ship station that uses HF Clover.
CW is cost effective for some FOC ships. It all depends on what they pay their
R/O. If you can get a Filipino, Romanian, or a Bulgarian (Actually, the
Filipinos are getting more expensive) for $500/month, when you factor in the
low cost of equipment, maintainence, and actual communications charges by the
shore stations, and especially since many 3rd world R/Os also do the old man's
clerical work like payroll, etc, it is a lot cheaper to keep Sparks around
until '99.
With ships registered to traditional maritime nations hiring national crews
such as the US, the picture changes quite a bit. Wage levels are a bigger
factor. Most commercial ships don't need ultra-fast comms, though research,
survey, etc vessels often need greater throughput. Wages are the real driving
factor. Wage-wise, GMDSS is virtually free for the vessel operator.
As for after 1999, I am afraid I agree that there will be few users of CW other
than hams. I guess the "number" stations will be the only other users. Us
hams are really the only ones, in light of new technology, who have need of CW.
We have a pretty modest HF allocation, and therefore need to keep at least
some of our comms to a narrow bandwidth mode. Homebrewing is another big
factor. You couldn't expect a 13 year old General to put together a Pactor
station out of an old SW set, a roll of magnet wire and $30 in Rat Shack parts.
Simplicity is the real beauty of CW. The signal is modulated with a switch
and demodulated by ear. Kilobuck+ equipment adds a lot to the mode, but it
ain't necessary. That's why CW will always have a place in ham radio, and not
because of any inherent technical superiority over other digital modes.
73 EVRBDY DE AB5VH (Robinson)
From the Beautiful Lower Rio Grande Valley
In the Great State of TEXAS
dit diddy-dit dit.........
RCrusoe
In article <34cf6ce1....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net
(Gary Coffman) writes:
>
Shortly after Loran A service was discontinued. I don't remember
the exact
>date, but Loran A has been gone for a long time.
I think after Hurricane Allen, in 81. The 3H3 tower blew down and Loran C was
already on-line in most U.S coastal waters, so they just let it go. They shut
the whole Loran A system down shortly thereafter. I remember all the fishermen
were scrambling to convert all their Loran A TD coordinates to Loran C and/or
lat/long.
Gary Coffman
From: Ed Soniat <e...@texas.gtri.gatech.edu>
>
>Gary:
>
>An excellent response on the value of code as a low SNR mode. One thing that
>I didn't read was what are the low tech solutions to low SNR communications?
Coherent is low tech by today's standards. It only requires what amounts
to downright primitive equipment.
>Should Morse code be replaced by anything that a human with a simple radio
>transmitter and an even simpler radio receiver can use.
Realize that the simplest practical transmitters for OOK Morse
can also be used for FSK with only the most trivial of modifications
(a shift capacitor and keying transistor). And any receiver practical
for copying OOK Morse can also copy FSK. And it has been proved
that, when sent slowly enough for manual human interpretation, FSK
is more reliably discerned by ear than is OOK. Early arc transmitter
operators did this because making and breaking the arc wasn't
practical, so they FSKed it instead. Even when using Morse, FSK
is better than OOK. Today's amateurs generally don't know that
because they've never thought of doing it.
By ear copy of uniform codes is also possible. For example, I can
copy some words and phrases sent in 60 WPM Baudot by ear simply
from long exposure to RTTY. If sent more slowly, and if one had good
reason to practice, there's no reason it couldn't be solid by ear copy.
Of course machine decoders are even better, and much faster, and
can also be quite simple. The simplest high performance decoder is
the old Hoff TU from 1963. It uses 88mH toroid passive filters and a
simple 12AT7 vacuum tube slicer. Today we'd use a garden variety
opamp for the slicer. This unit is about 70% to 80% as good as today's
DSP units at a fixed speed, and that still makes it better than what can
be done by ear. But we can do DSP with as few as 2 chips, and that lets
us dynamically adapt to channel conditions, so there's no reason not to
use them instead.
>When the fecal matter hits the impeller KISS is best.
That's often true, and the most important thing to be KISS
is the most unreliable component, the operator as decoder.
Fatigue, stress, and injury can cause operator performance
as a decoder to deteriorate dramatically. Machines don't
become fatigued, aren't subject to stress, and have infinite
patience to deal with any poor communications channel.
They are better than the human operator is at his best.
They also allow those without much training to use them
effectively in situations where the primary operator may
be incapacitated. This can be critical in an emergency.
Machine decoders are at least as reliable as the radios
to which they are attached, and as easily repaired if
necessary. The same can't be said in general about the
operator. His wetware modem is exceedingly complex.
Our best neuroscientists don't fully understand how it
works, and are frequently unable to affect repairs on it
when it malfunctions. We do understand machine
decoders, and we can repair them if necessary.
>If you feel this question is worthy of response and will enhance the
>dialogue feel free to post it to the group.
It has all been said before on the groups, but it bears repeating.
>I for one as a Tech No code, with aspirations for HF privilages don't
>feel held back by the code. I am very glad that there is a no
>code entry point. I wouldn't be an operator with out it, and at the very
>least I am a voice helping preserve frequency allocations.
Indeed, and at least some of us are happy that you've had the opportunity
to become an amateur in that fashion. Realize that wasn't always the case.
A number of us fought for a decade to make it happen. Its fine that you
don't find code speed testing a barrier to full amateur privileges, but
many do. Now if there were any reason to believe that Morse speed was
essential to being a full privilege amateur, I'd say "tough" to those who
want to avoid it. But that isn't the case.
There is no compelling reason remaining for an amateur to be able to
receive Morse at a certain speed. Once, a very long time ago, there was
a compelling reason. That was interoperability with life safety stations
sharing our allocations who only used Morse. Amateurs needed to know
Morse so that the life safety stations could tell them to QRT when they
interfered with life safety communications.
But life safety services don't use Morse anymore, and they don't
share frequencies with amateurs either. So the rationale for the test
requirement has become a moot point. Morse speed testing no longer
addresses any compelling government regulatory concern. And its
testing has become a regulatory artifact which needs to be removed.
Morse is just one of many modes an amateur may voluntarily choose
to use. And if he chooses to do so, he perforce must become competent
in its use. No formal test is required, only the real test we all pass or
fail every day with any amateur mode, that of making a contact on the
air.
Gary Coffman
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:48:50 -0700, Will White <will....@asu.edu> wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>
>> All amateur bands but one permit CW (OOK Morse) operation.
>> 160m isn't partitioned (formally) into separate voice and data
>> segments as most other HF bands are. Any mode can be used
>> on any part of 160m. (There are voluntary bandplans in use,
>> operation since the amateur service is practically alone in
>> still using OOK Morse. Virtually all other services have
>> abandoned it, or are rapidly phasing it out of regular use.
>
>Russian military training communications ppl in Morse, using straight
>keys! What band *doesn't* permit CW operation?
I'm not surprised. Russia is a third world economy which attempted
to field a first world military. But aside from the trappings of nuclear
weapons and missiles, it never succeeded. Much of its infrastructure
is still primitive. They even still make vacuum tubes over there. But
they do know better. Some of the best data algorithms have come
from Russians. They just don't yet have the microelectronics
infrastructure to field them properly on the necessary scale. We
don't have that excuse.
The 219 MHz amateur band is restricted to point to point data emissions
only.
Reg Edwards
Gary,
I think you are a victim of your own Yankee propaganda.
You are one of the people who think the Japanese never invented
anything but are very good copiers.
Wake up to the obvious facts. Obvious to the rest of the world if
not to you.
Have a good look under the bed. Any Reds?
Of course not!
Who was the first man in space?
- and all the tens of thousands of other instances.
Reg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Gary Coffman wrote in message
<34d0bed8....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
Richard Carroll
or...@xyznycap.rr.com wrote:
>>CW...it will NEVER die.
> >Walt.
>
> Yeah, right. If it's so efficient, why is it being phased out all over
> the world except in the ARS?
>
ANSWER: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Gary Coffman
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:29:33 -0000, "Reg Edwards" <G4fgq...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Gary,
>
>I think you are a victim of your own Yankee propaganda.
And I think you don't read very well.
>You are one of the people who think the Japanese never invented
>anything but are very good copiers.
I am well aware of Japanese inventive prowess, and more pertinently
to this topic, I am well aware of Japanese technical manufacturing
prowess. What does that have to do with the poor technical infrastructure
of the economic components of the former Soviet Union?
>Wake up to the obvious facts. Obvious to the rest of the world if
>not to you.
What "obvious facts" are those? Are they that the Soviet Union
self-destructed because its economy couldn't bear up under the
demands of a technological world?
>Have a good look under the bed. Any Reds?
More mindless drivel.
>Who was the first man in space?
Yuri Gargarin of course. Now what does that have to do with the
poor technical infrastructure of the former Soviet Union? Did the
average Soviet soldier have access to the technology used in the
Soviet space program? No he did not. It was basically handcrafted
specifically for the space race.
It was not widely deployed enough to equip even front line Soviet troops
with modern communications, much less the reserve formations. Thus
it is unsurprising that they still use primitve methods. Their technical
infrastructure isn't up to mass producing the better technologies. And
that's because they've operated with what amounts to a third world
economy.
>- and all the tens of thousands of other instances.
Indeed, Reg. Just what is the Russian wafer fab capacity?
How many VLSI chips do they produce per annum? And
at what cost each? And why is there a big Hewlett Packard
banner prominently displayed in Russian mission control?
As Bill Clinton proclaimed in the last election, "It is the economy,
stupid!" We have a robust advanced technical infrastructure
because we have a robust economy to drive it. The ex-Soviets
don't because their economy has operated at third world levels.
During the Apollo-Soyuz rendezvous mission, the cosmonauts
were astonished to see the handheld scientific calculator
our astronauts carried as backup for the navigation computer.
They had nothing like it. But they were much more astonished
when they were told that anyone could walk into a store in
America and buy one off the shelf. That was unbelieveable
to someone familiar with the Soviet economy.
It isn't a matter that the Soviets couldn't design such a device,
it is that they didn't have the productive capacity to mass produce
it so that it could be widely deployed. And that's necessary to
equip an army, or a population, with advanced technology.
What is it about that you can't comprehend?
Gary
dick sander
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> Much better techniques exist, and are in everyday use by amateurs
> and non-amateurs. Clover 2000 is an example of the latter. It has
> displaced much of the HF maritime CW communications traffic
> which hasn't moved to satellite. It is small enough, simple enough,
> and cheap enough that any HF radio equipped vessel can afford to
> use it. That a few third world flagged vessels still don't is testimony
> to their backwardness, not to their perspicacity.
>
> for those who do not wish to do better, but its days as a mission
> critical communications method are rapidly drawing to a close
> precisely because it *isn't* the mode that gets through when
> nothing else will.
Gary as all your posts reveal, you're definitely pro digital
communications.
As a ham that has never used anything but
an old homebrew ST-5 and model 15 on RTTY in the 70s, I have
a couple of questions:
Please discuss digital modes from a "pileup" standpoint, not from a
single point-to-point contact in deep space wheareas SNR is the only
critera.
From a practical point of view, If I'm in a "real" 20m DX pileup with
the big guns (all using a 21st century digital mode) will the digital
modes be any better to work the DX station; ie, will they "capture" like
FM? Does the DX station have to be exactly on freq to lock in? How does
all the digital stuff keep from colliding in the pileup and going
bananas?
Is digital only good for one-on-one contacts without 200 stations trying
to make contact?
Thanks, Dick -K5QY
Gary Coffman
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:57:10 -0600, Richard Carroll <w0...@scan.missouri.org>
wrote:
Indeed, that's exactly right. The economic consequences of poor
communications can be very high. And the military and life safety
consequences of poor communications can be very grave as well.
That's why OOK Morse is being phased out around the world. It
doesn't have the capacity, availability, or reliability to keep up with
the information demands of a modern battlefield or modern commerce
or modern traffic flows and volumes.
Gerald Schmitt
In <34d1f83c...@news.atl.bellsouth.net> ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary
As a side note poor Yuri is now buried in the Kremlin wall after
succuming to the wonderful Russian medical system. He died while
undergoing a hemroid operation. First in space only to be killed by a
third world infrastructure.
Jerry
Philip de Cadenet
Don't knock them,
Russia has a third world economy primarily due to rife corruption and
the indemic mafia problem.
>I'm not surprised. Russia is a third world economy which attempted
>to field a first world military. But aside from the trappings of nuclear
>weapons and missiles, it never succeeded.
and it would open even your educated eyes if you had even an inkling as
to what the present military are up to in their supposedly secret
underground bases in this country. Right up there with the HAARP
project, and they're not looking at the damn weather.
> Much of its infrastructure
>is still primitive. They even still make vacuum tubes over there.
> But
>they do know better. Some of the best data algorithms have come
>from Russians. They just don't yet have the microelectronics
>infrastructure to field them properly on the necessary scale. We
>don't have that excuse.
befor the west.
>The 219 MHz amateur band is restricted to point to point data emissions
>only.
>
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
>534 Shannon Way | We break it |
>Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
--
Philip de Cadenet
Reg Edwards
What a peculiar way to go.
I always thought he was killed in an air crash. But it was a
Russian aircraft.
Reg E.
=================================================
n4...@ix.netcom.com
On 30 Jan 1998 17:30:48 GMT, kc5...@ix.netcom.com(Gerald Schmitt )
wrote:
>
>As a side note poor Yuri is now buried in the Kremlin wall after
>succuming to the wonderful Russian medical system. He died while
>undergoing a hemroid operation. First in space only to be killed by a
>third world infrastructure.
>
>
> Jerry
>
Make that note way off to the side. Yuri Gagarin died in an aircraft
accident during a routine training mission in 1968.
de n4jvp
Gary Coffman
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:03:03 -0600, dick sander <san...@aud.alcatel.com> wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>> Much better techniques exist, and are in everyday use by amateurs
>> and non-amateurs. Clover 2000 is an example of the latter. It has
>> displaced much of the HF maritime CW communications traffic
>> which hasn't moved to satellite. It is small enough, simple enough,
>> and cheap enough that any HF radio equipped vessel can afford to
>> use it. That a few third world flagged vessels still don't is testimony
>> to their backwardness, not to their perspicacity.
>>
>> CW will probably be around for years to come in a hobbyist role,
>> for those who do not wish to do better, but its days as a mission
>> critical communications method are rapidly drawing to a close
>> precisely because it *isn't* the mode that gets through when
>> nothing else will.
>
>Gary as all your posts reveal, you're definitely pro digital
>communications.
Yes I am. They allow the ultimate in weak signal communications.
They allow the maximum content transfer under a given set of
conditions. And they are the most robust in the face of interference.
They allow us to operate at a lower power and with less expense
than do analog methods. And that allows a higher density of operations
in a given amount of spectrum which benefits everyone.
>As a ham that has never used anything but
>an old homebrew ST-5 and model 15 on RTTY in the 70s, I have
>a couple of questions:
>
>Please discuss digital modes from a "pileup" standpoint, not from a
>single point-to-point contact in deep space wheareas SNR is the only
>critera.
>
>From a practical point of view, If I'm in a "real" 20m DX pileup with
>the big guns (all using a 21st century digital mode) will the digital
>modes be any better to work the DX station; ie, will they "capture" like
>FM? Does the DX station have to be exactly on freq to lock in? How does
>all the digital stuff keep from colliding in the pileup and going
>bananas?
>Is digital only good for one-on-one contacts without 200 stations trying
>to make contact?
What you are describing is precisely the situation a server faces on a
busy LAN when a number of processes attempt to communicate with
it. Good digital protocols arbitrate such situations so that the requests
que up in an orderly fashion and are handled with the least conflict.
This maximizes the utility of the available spectrum. In a peer-peer
network, this is done using p-persist backoff alogrithms. In a master-
slave network, it is done by token passing.
The same techniques can be applied to amateur radio Dx gaming.
Of course I'm afraid that the traditional Dxer won't appreciate it
because it turns a competitive situation into a cooperative situation,
and Dxers abhore cooperation. That's why the digital Dxer crowd
still uses RTTY instead of a protocol mode which would enforce
cooperation. It is a machismo thing, a power game, and protocol
modes remove the advantage of excess power and aggressive
behavior.
Cutie Boy
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:30:18 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
wrote:
>They allow us to operate at a lower power and with less expense
>than do analog methods.
The computer allows us to operate at much lower power with less
expense than the CW methods. So what ????
______________________________________________________________________
Gary Coffman
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:17:03 +0000, Philip de Cadenet
<phi...@two-way.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't knock them,
>Russia has a third world economy primarily due to rife corruption and
>the indemic mafia problem.
I know. They have the natural resources and educated population to
become a major economic power. But they suffered for nearly a century
under a political system which wouldn't let them create a dynamic economy,
and now they have a chaotic power vacuum as they try to transition to
a market economy. It's going to be tough because they have a legacy of
neglected infrastructure (both physical and institutional) to build to get to
a competitive situation.
An example of the problem can be extracted from recent headlines.
The Russian telephone system is *the pits*. The cost of bringing it
up to Western levels is prohibitive, so the Russians have wisely
chosen to jump over the wired stage and go directly to advanced
wireless phone service. They've contracted with Qualcom to
install CDMA PCS systems. But institutional problems have
caused inordinate delays and cost overruns. The most recent
example was of a Qualcom employee arrested for using a GPS
receiver to survey a coverage area. He needed to know where
things were, so obviously he must be a spy. Sheesh!
>>I'm not surprised. Russia is a third world economy which attempted
>>to field a first world military. But aside from the trappings of nuclear
>>weapons and missiles, it never succeeded.
>I've just returned from Krivoy Rog in Ukraine, part of the former USSR,
>and it would open even your educated eyes if you had even an inkling as
>to what the present military are up to in their supposedly secret
>underground bases in this country. Right up there with the HAARP
>project, and they're not looking at the damn weather.
Heh, HAARP is hardly high tech, just high power. I'm well aware that
the ex-Soviets developed some impressive technical weapons. As I've
noted, they have the brain power. But what they lack is the economic
infrastructure to widely deploy advanced technical systems. For the
bulk of their forces, they have been forced to try to make up in raw
numbers for what they lack in ability to mass produce advanced
technical systems.
During the Cold War, a number of analysts suggested that raw
numbers was a substitute for high technology that would rebound
to the advantage of the Soviets. But the reality, demonstrated again
and again in the Middle East's wars where front line equipment of
both sides clashed, was that high tech wins, and wins in a dramatic
and overwhelming way.
>> Much of its infrastructure
>>is still primitive. They even still make vacuum tubes over there.
>Yes, Sylvania, in St Petersburg is the worlds largest tube manufacturer!
>> But
>>they do know better. Some of the best data algorithms have come
>>from Russians. They just don't yet have the microelectronics
>>infrastructure to field them properly on the necessary scale. We
>>don't have that excuse.
St. Petersburg is a good example of the contrasts. On the one hand
you have a plant making trailing edge technology. On the other hand,
you have a cottage industry of programmers writing sophisticated
video games and advanced software systems, mostly until very
recently using only pencil and paper. I've been working with one
of these groups for a few years. They just couldn't obtain computer
resources at any price. Now we've been able to get some Tiawan
clone machines to them, and their productivity has skyrocketed.
But they still can't get a simple dial up modem connection to work
through their antiquated phone system. They've been talking to
us about wireless solutions to bypass that infrastructure problem.
>Laser eye surgery was also pioneered in russia, around twenty years
>befor the west.
Yes, but the average level of their medical care system is appalling.
Doctors Without Boundaries has been sending teams over there to
give health care to their citizens for a while now. What they've found
has been shocking, IE hospitals without even the basic medical
supplies and with equipment dating to mid-century or earlier. Their
staffers *know* better, but have been unable to *do* better because
of the dismal condition of their economic systems. The legacy of
communism still weighs down their efforts to modernize. Things
we take for granted here, like a MRI machine in every hospital,
are largely unknown over there. And that isn't because they don't
know how to build them. The tokomak technology that they invented
shows that they clearly have the knowledge and ability to produce
them. What they lack is the economic power to do so on a wide
scale.
That's been the key point of this discussion. They've been forced
to cling to trailing edge technologies because they haven't had the
economic power to deploy better systems, even though they certainly
know how. They've been able to concentrate their limited economic
power to produce showcase items like their space program and
a few high tech bits of military hardware, but they've been unable
to do so on the mass level needed to let the technologies filter
down to the rank and file.
We've had a couple of ex-Soviet TV staffers working for us for
a few years now. They tell me that even today they are still amazed
when they go to the supermarket or the mall. The level of technology
available to the masses, and the quantity of it, still astounds them.
The level of technology which was restricted to their most advanced
military systems is a commonplace component of children's toys
over here. And that's the difference. Our economy has allowed us
to push high technology to the mass market level, theirs couldn't.
As an illustration of what that means, during the mid-80s, a Soviet
sonobouy was recovered in the Atlantic. When it was disassembled,
it was discovered that the embedded processor it used was from a
batch used to build Mattel toy robots. The Soviets had been buying
the toys, extracting the chips, and using them in their front line
military equipment. That's because they didn't have the fab capacity
to build their own in production volumes.
Any high tech enterprise depends on literally hundreds of other
enterprises to build the tools to build the tools to build the system.
Only a robust economic system can produce that at mass market
cost levels. Without it, you can do one-off showcase stunts, but
you can't field the technology on a large scale. So we have the
contrast of Russian troops being taught Morse Code, no doubt
on vacuum tube equipment, while their counterparts in the
West are being instructed in the use of digital comm systems
using advanced VLSI architectures. Where the two have clashed,
it hasn't been the primitive techniques which have won.
Both war and civil commerce have changed qualitatively since
WWII. The critical difference has been in the timely flow of
information to allow precision targeting of resources, whether
that's in a smart bomb, a air tasking order of a couple hundred
pages, or in just in time manufacturing and distribution inventory
tracking and control. The information flows needed to be competitive
today are orders of magnitude larger than in the WWII era. Morse
can't cut it, digital comms can.
Gary Coffman
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 13:52:29 GMT, cu...@radiotelephone.net.ham (Cutie Boy) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:30:18 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
>wrote:
>
>>They allow us to operate at a lower power and with less expense
>>than do analog methods.
>
>The computer allows us to operate at much lower power with less
>expense than the CW methods. So what ????
That maximizes communications utility while minimizing the impact
on other spectral users. That is generally considered a good combination
of properties in a communications system.
Richard Clark
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:34:16 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 13:52:29 GMT, cu...@radiotelephone.net.ham (Cutie Boy) wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:30:18 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>They allow us to operate at a lower power and with less expense
>>>than do analog methods.
>>
>>The computer allows us to operate at much lower power with less
>>expense than the CW methods. So what ????
>
>That maximizes communications utility while minimizing the impact
>on other spectral users. That is generally considered a good combination
>of properties in a communications system.
>
>Gary
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
>534 Shannon Way | We break it |
>Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Hi Gary,
Though technically correct, your arguments fall flat in that this
isn't a technical debate, it is an emotional one (you've alluded to
this perception in other posts). The conclusion that CW is a fading
requirement for the commercial world is inescapable (market forces are
like death and taxes). Thus there can be no appeal to its real need,
but rather its perceived need.
Beyond this point on the page, Gary, mostly what follows may be
classified as "ranting and raving" and not necessarily direct response
to any particular posting. So, to continue...
One perspective of that perceived need is rather apocalyptic
anticipating a time when societal structures and standards have
collapsed. As irrational as the apocalyptic perspective may sometimes
become, it serves to establish a fundamental level of concern. That
concern is that like bio-diversity, whatever is lost can never be
recovered when the need arises.
CW presents a form of code, encryption, digitization,
whatever-you-may-call-it, that is commonly available throughout the
world. When I say commonly available, this can be as literal as
hearing someone define it. This constitutes an Oral tradition. It
already has a protocol associated with it that is its own lingua
franca (the Q code). This code requires no supplementary equipment to
interface it to the user. Even more important, is that this code and
protocol can be carried in your head, and practiced by hand. Being a
primitive mode, it is not restricted to electrical transmission
(lights, bells and whistles work as direct replacements within the
constraints of range), nor does it require complicated
synchronizations. As the mind is the ultimate signal processor,
interfering signals are managed with far greater sophistication than
the best digital techniques that require co-operation. This is not to
say that the mind can outperform digital processes, rather it says
that in an uncooperative, chaotic state, the mind will recover more
data than a digital process.
However, even here my apologia leans too heavily on a technical
rebuttal. The proper response should be couched in terms of the
bio-diversity allusion. The real world demonstrates total disregard
for issues of bio-diversity everyday, so how does this allusion impact
this discussion? For those very reasons of disregard. Just as the
passing of a genome from our genetic pool is an irretrievable loss, so
is the lost knowledge of a process an erosion to our cultural memory.
As the commercial world discards this mode, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY
to maintain it. This is a REQUIREMENT OF OUR CULTURE, or our culture
is meaningless and renders us as merely a class of technical
hedonists.
The stumbling block of this discussion also lies outside of the
technical discussion. That block is the practice of selective
discrimination against non-code operators.
That block should remain. For a culture, it serves as a necessary
rite of passage. It fosters the education of our oldest and venerated
mode. Through the restrictions of the band plan it fosters its use.
As a distinction in one's standing within the culture, it should be
retained as a requirement for advancement. However, as a segregating
principle insofar as HF/VHF privileges, this is not a cultural
necessity, but rather a legalism. That legalism, in light of today's
practices, has been rendered meaningless and serves only political
goals.
This block then should be revisited to remove not the cultural mode
but rather remove the outdated legal restrictions. In fact I would
open the floor to discussion of Amateur Radio acquiring title to the
entire HF domain. Where there are existing commercial services in
use, they can share with us as a secondary user on a mutually
non-interfering basis. I'll trust that Hams will honor their rights
more than they would observe ours. This band-grab could not come from
our own efforts, as we are barely able to scrabble for what spectrum
we have. No this move would have to be patronized. It is incumbent
upon the governments to grant us this spectrum as THEIR OBLIGATION to
aid our support and fostering this mode; to encourage public
participation; and to hold the spectrum in the Public Domain.
Aside from that last wild fling of imagination, CW policies involving
discrimination should be examined at all levels, not removed.
Priorities may change over time, but what society discards it's
heritage?
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Cutie Boy
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:00:17 GMT, rwc...@rwclark.seanet.com (Richard
Clark) wrote:
(...)
>CW presents a form of code, encryption, digitization,
>whatever-you-may-call-it, that is commonly available throughout the
>world. When I say commonly available, this can be as literal as
>hearing someone define it. This constitutes an Oral tradition. It
>already has a protocol associated with it that is its own lingua
>franca (the Q code). This code requires no supplementary equipment to
>interface it to the user. Even more important, is that this code and
>protocol can be carried in your head, and practiced by hand. Being a
>primitive mode, it is not restricted to electrical transmission
>(lights, bells and whistles work as direct replacements within the
>constraints of range), nor does it require complicated
>synchronizations. As the mind is the ultimate signal processor,
>interfering signals are managed with far greater sophistication than
>the best digital techniques that require co-operation. This is not to
>say that the mind can outperform digital processes, rather it says
>that in an uncooperative, chaotic state, the mind will recover more
>data than a digital process.
hi.
we don't care nor interested in how the CW works.
we use digital. we don't like analog and i don't know why we have
to be forced with analog.
we can use CW. we don't use CW. we can use satellite and we can
use digital. we don't have to know how the CW works and we don't
have to be forced with it.
----------------------------------
some say casette tape recording system is better for computer instead
of floppy disk. we just don't care. you look silly if you try to
force this obselete method.
Gerald Schmitt
In <6ati17$7du$1...@uranium.btinternet.com> "Reg Edwards"
<G4fgq...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>What a peculiar way to go.
>
>I always thought he was killed in an air crash. But it was a
>Russian aircraft.
I had heard that also but it was during the time of propaganda and well
before the time of glasnoss so what I was told in Moscow last fall may
be closer to the truth. I will try and find a more informed source
during my next visit. The hotel we tend to use is right across the
street from his alma matter perhaps they know.
Jerry
>
>Reg E.
>=================================================
Tim Hynde
Cutie Boy wrote:
> hi.
>
> we don't care nor interested in how the CW works.
>
> we use digital. we don't like analog and i don't know why we have
> to be forced with analog.
Well Cutie boy, are you now saying that you don't like voice modes, I had no idea
anyone was forced to use analog modes for communication. Perhaps you could
enlighten us with what modes you consider 'analog' and where it's written that your
forced to use them.. I'm sure your definition will be somewhere just left of the
Orion nebula but I'd still like to hear it.
> some say casette tape recording system is better for computer instead
> of floppy disk. we just don't care. you look silly if you try to
> force this obselete method.
Is a casette tape analog for music and digital for computer? ROTFLOL
Tim
Quote of the century:
"... there was no radio license 200 years ago... so is
it possible to transmit anything today ?? no... same concept." - Cutie Boy, 98
RCrusoe
In article <34d31a52...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net
(Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Much of its infrastructure
>>is still primitive. They even still make
>vacuum tubes over there.
>Yes, Sylvania, in St Petersburg is the worlds
>largest tube manufacturer!
Still, it is nice to know that high-power vacuum tubes suitable for legal limit
amateur amps will be not only available but of high quality for some time to
come. Interesting how long they had to stay with hollow state for small signal
applications. I understand they did some fascinating work with (excuse the
apparent misnomer) miniaturization of vacuum tube circuitry. While this was
indeed a dead end, it is interesting from an academic and historical point.
Anybody know more about this?
Don & Cindy
> > we use digital. we don't like analog and i don't know why we have
> > to be forced with analog.
I have been reading the mail on this one and just had to say that I
thought
CW was digital. There are only two levels, off and on. Ones and zeros.
The timing is not quite as accurate as a clock in a computer but may be
more flexible. I can transmit cw with one transistor, a couple
resistors and capacitors, a crystal, 9 volt battery, and a piece of wire
for an antenna.
On one occasion I was on the receiving end 300 miles away and the signal
was S9. I have also sent code with two wires as a key (read that
digital modulator).
I like to tell prospective hams that they sholul be able to one thing as
a minimum to be an amateur radio operator:
Go get the following stuff and set up a radio station and send and
receive a message. Receiver, transmitter, wire, coax, solder and
soldering iron.
They should be able to cut and build a dipole that will work.
They should know enough to hook up the receiver and transmitter.
With out a key or microphone (sometimes microphones break amd no one
ever has a key now) they should be able to use 5 wpm morse code to
communicate either by using two wires as a key or possibly the switch on
the transmitter.
In an emergency situation we do not always have everything we would like
and must be mentally prepared to adapt.
N4DJ
Cutie Boy
On Sun, 01 Feb 1998 07:58:05 -0500, Don & Cindy <dan...@erols.com>
wrote:
>On one occasion I was on the receiving end 300 miles away and the signal
>was S9.
which band ?
One one occasion, I was receiving 500 miles away station on 80m band
S9.
Gary Coffman
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:34:16 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 13:52:29 GMT, cu...@radiotelephone.net.ham (Cutie Boy) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:30:18 GMT, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>They allow us to operate at a lower power and with less expense
>>>>than do analog methods.
>>>
>>>The computer allows us to operate at much lower power with less
>>>expense than the CW methods. So what ????
>>
>>That maximizes communications utility while minimizing the impact
>>on other spectral users. That is generally considered a good combination
>>of properties in a communications system.
>>
>
>Though technically correct, your arguments fall flat in that this
>isn't a technical debate, it is an emotional one (you've alluded to
>this perception in other posts). The conclusion that CW is a fading
>requirement for the commercial world is inescapable (market forces are
>like death and taxes). Thus there can be no appeal to its real need,
>but rather its perceived need.
Indeed, my statements are technically correct. Signaling is a technical
subject, no other basis is rational for its discussion. There are irrational
and emotional forces at work which attempt to defend OOK Morse on the
basis of technical superiority, IE the "Morse gets through when nothing else
will" camp. Their position is without merit. There are also those who argue
that Morse is superior because it can be used with simpler and cheaper
equipment. When examined closely, that position too is without merit.
VLSI has made cost and complexity arguments moot. The added level
of cost is negligible, in fact cost is lower considering the human time cost
of conditioning the wetware modem. And as to complexity, no machine
decoder we can build approaches the complexity of the wetware modem,
yet the machine decoder offers superior and more reliable performance.
Better performance at lower cost is the hallmark of a successful system.
>Beyond this point on the page, Gary, mostly what follows may be
>classified as "ranting and raving" and not necessarily direct response
>to any particular posting. So, to continue...
I would expect a defender of OOK Morse government mandates to
"rant and rave", emotional posturing is the last refuge of those who
have lost the debate on its merits. But proceed on, lets see if some
rational light can be shed on mystic beliefs.
>One perspective of that perceived need is rather apocalyptic
>anticipating a time when societal structures and standards have
>collapsed. As irrational as the apocalyptic perspective may sometimes
>become, it serves to establish a fundamental level of concern. That
>concern is that like bio-diversity, whatever is lost can never be
>recovered when the need arises.
Unfortunately for that argument, the Morse genome has been fully mapped.
It can be revived at any future time should a need appear. Discontinuance
of regular testing for amateur licensing does not eliminate full knowledge of
Morse coding. Anyone at any time can still take it up and condition themselves
to respond to it as thousands of Boy Scouts have done over the last century,
from a book, should a real need arise for its rebirth. As you point out, that
need is extremely unlikely, and certainly there are alternative codings which
are superior to Morse which could be revived instead. (Morse is not particularly
well formed. Information theory has taught us how to design codes which are
much better, even if used by hand and ear.)
>CW presents a form of code, encryption, digitization,
>whatever-you-may-call-it, that is commonly available throughout the
>world. When I say commonly available, this can be as literal as
>hearing someone define it. This constitutes an Oral tradition. It
>already has a protocol associated with it that is its own lingua
>franca (the Q code). This code requires no supplementary equipment to
>interface it to the user. Even more important, is that this code and
>protocol can be carried in your head, and practiced by hand. Being a
>primitive mode, it is not restricted to electrical transmission
>(lights, bells and whistles work as direct replacements within the
>constraints of range), nor does it require complicated
>synchronizations.
Nor do a number of other codes with properties superior to Morse.
And any wireless transmission system requires supplementary
equipment, we are not equipped to directly generate or sense RF.
The part required to utilize more robust codings is only a minor
part of that total equipment set today. In fact it could be built into
radio equipment today with negligible impact on cost (and in fact
is in the case of some non-amateur equipment, and even some
amateur equipment, witness the GRAPES 56 kb RF modem).
As to usages outside the sphere of radio signaling, that's not
relevant to amateur radio licensing. But even there, there are
more robust codings which could be employed, and have been
employed, witness the Prisoner's Code, and the semaphore
code.
>As the mind is the ultimate signal processor,
>interfering signals are managed with far greater sophistication than
>the best digital techniques that require co-operation. This is not to
>say that the mind can outperform digital processes, rather it says
>that in an uncooperative, chaotic state, the mind will recover more
>data than a digital process.
This latter is incorrect. Machine codes can, and do, operate against
uncooperative and chaotic backgrounds which totally defeat the
human mind/ear. The coding systems used by Voyager, Galileo,
and the Navy's ELF network are examples, as are the spread
spectrum codes used at HF and VHF+ by the military to prevail
against an intelligently hostile jamming envirionment. No manual
OOK Morse operator can succeed in such hostile environments,
but machine digital methods routinely do.
This is merely a restatement of the old Morse Myth that Morse
gets through when all else fails. It doesn't. If it did, the military
and NASA, who need the utmost in performance against hostile
signaling environments, would still be using it. But neither does.
And the better codes allow use of less power which reduces
overall mission costs in a number of different ways.
>However, even here my apologia leans too heavily on a technical
>rebuttal. The proper response should be couched in terms of the
>bio-diversity allusion. The real world demonstrates total disregard
>for issues of bio-diversity everyday, so how does this allusion impact
>this discussion? For those very reasons of disregard. Just as the
>passing of a genome from our genetic pool is an irretrievable loss, so
>is the lost knowledge of a process an erosion to our cultural memory.
>As the commercial world discards this mode, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY
>to maintain it. This is a REQUIREMENT OF OUR CULTURE, or our culture
>is meaningless and renders us as merely a class of technical
>hedonists.
This is the most absurd nonsense. As noted above, the Morse coding
system is fully documented. It cannot become lost unless those documents
are lost, which is highly unlikely indeed since they are extremely widely
dispersed in every encyclopedia, Boy Scout Handbook, historical text
on coding and signaling, etc. Only if the ability to read were lost could
knowledge of Morse be lost, and then it would be a moot point anyway
since Morse's purpose is to convey alphabetic text.
No on-going historical re-enactor group is required to maintain knowledge
of the coding system. Do we moan and wring our hands that people today
no longer construct Leydon jars? No we do not. The knowledge still exists if
there were some reason to build one. A Leydon jar constructor's society is
not required to keep the knowledge alive by constant re-enactments. Nor is
there a need for electrical workers to pass a speed test in Leydon jar
construction. Better capacitor designs exist, we use them instead. But we
have lost nothing of importance as a result of using superior methods.
>The stumbling block of this discussion also lies outside of the
>technical discussion. That block is the practice of selective
>discrimination against non-code operators.
>
>That block should remain. For a culture, it serves as a necessary
>rite of passage. It fosters the education of our oldest and venerated
>mode. Through the restrictions of the band plan it fosters its use.
>As a distinction in one's standing within the culture, it should be
>retained as a requirement for advancement.
This is nothing more than religious/mystic argument. Now it is true that
there is freedom of religion in this country, but it is equally true that there
is freedom *from* religion in this country. Our goverment is supposed
to be secular, and not promote a particular religious/mystic view. To
embed mystic beliefs in regulation is wrong and outside the legitimate
scope of government. Rational secular purpose must be shown for
usages of government power. Government should not be permitted
to abuse secular power to promote mystic beliefs and rites. That
is the province of the church and other mystic orders.
If groups such as the ARRL and FISTS wish to perpetuate mystic
rites of passage and other mythic pseudo-religious beliefs and
activities as a voluntary matter, they have the right to do so. But
under our system of government, they are not supposed to have
use of the power of government to enforce those mystic beliefs
or rites of passage on others as a price of access to public
spectrum. That would be like forcing someone to convert to
Catholicism in order to enter a section of a public park. It is
a non-rational and non-secular requirement.
>However, as a segregating
>principle insofar as HF/VHF privileges, this is not a cultural
>necessity, but rather a legalism. That legalism, in light of today's
>practices, has been rendered meaningless and serves only political
>goals.
Indeed, it is the embodiment in law of a mythic/mystic belief which has
no place in secular government. And it serves to perpetuate the vested
interests of a particular class of citizens in the clearest NIMBY terms.
>This block then should be revisited to remove not the cultural mode
>but rather remove the outdated legal restrictions. In fact I would
>open the floor to discussion of Amateur Radio acquiring title to the
>entire HF domain. Where there are existing commercial services in
>use, they can share with us as a secondary user on a mutually
>non-interfering basis. I'll trust that Hams will honor their rights
>more than they would observe ours. This band-grab could not come from
>our own efforts, as we are barely able to scrabble for what spectrum
>we have. No this move would have to be patronized. It is incumbent
>upon the governments to grant us this spectrum as THEIR OBLIGATION to
>aid our support and fostering this mode; to encourage public
>participation; and to hold the spectrum in the Public Domain.
This also is absurd. Spectrum is allocated on the basis of how the
public interest is best served (at least in theory, and to a considerable
extent in practice as well). That public interest is primarily measured
in economic/monetary terms, as well it should be since money is the
counter used to measure human activities and values in bulk terms
(Economics 101). Amateur radio is a very small contributor to human
activities and values. It receives a disproportionate share of spectrum
in relation to that value today. The idea that it could make economically
more important interests take a secondary role flies in the face of
rationality.
>Aside from that last wild fling of imagination, CW policies involving
>discrimination should be examined at all levels, not removed.
>Priorities may change over time, but what society discards it's
>heritage?
Society has discarded the buggy whip and the starting crank.
Society has discarded many things which are no longer relevant
to modern life. Attempting to carry the past's baggage beyond a
reasonable point is counterproductive. It prevents the acquiring
of more pertinent current and future burdens because of the
limited carrying capacity of individuals and society. We need
not regurgitate phylogeny. We can stand on the shoulders of
the giants who have gone before us and not have to repeat
their struggles.
That does not mean that we should forget the past. We must learn
from the past's mistakes and successes so that we will not repeat
those mistakes or fail to improve upon those successes. And we do
so when we observe the deficiencies of past signaling methods and
adopt improved methods to supercede them based on the work of
people like Nyquist and Shannon and a host of others who have
shown us the way.
We have to learn to bury our dead and turn our faces toward
the future. That's where *we* have to spend the rest of our lives.
Trying to re-enact the daily lives and exploits of our ancestors
over and over will not bring them back to life. We have to move
forward. To adopt your biological metaphor, all life is evolution
and change. A static system is a dead system. Adapt or die is
the law of Nature.
Nunkhead
Gary, You have my vote for president! Amen
Gary Coffman
>thought CW was digital. There are only two levels, off and on. Ones and zeros.
>The timing is not quite as accurate as a clock in a computer but may be
>more flexible.
There are two separate things here. The modulation method commonly used
to convey Morse is OOK AM. That is, On-Off Keyed Amplitude Modulation.
It is an extreme form of AM modulation in that its negative peaks drive the
transmitter all the way to cutoff, but it is AM nonetheless. The modulation
is contained in the AM sidebands as with any AM transmisson. Since the
rate is typically very low, the sidebands are very near the carrier. We have
difficulty perceiving this directly by ear because the modulating frequencies
are below the normal low frequency limit of our hearing at the code speeds
typically used. So we use a special decoder circuit called a product detector
to remodulate this baseband, creating a MCW tone sequence product that
we can hear.
(Note that if we sent very fast, the modulation sidebands would come up
into the audible range, and we could hear them directly from the AM envelope
detector. They'd sound just like the clicks we hear from our hand key when we
are sending, but of course at a vastly higher rate such that they'd sound like
tones of different pitches for strings of dots and dashs. A machine decoder
can directly process the low frequency baseband from an AM detector and
doesn't need the product detector to receive OOK, but we typically don't do
it that way because of the frequency rolloff characteristics of our analog
receivers' audio sections.)
Now the coding is in the baseband waveform used to modulate the
transmitter, IE the waveform you'd see if you monitored the output
of your key on an oscilloscope. This is a *timing* code which encodes
information based on the timing of the interval between the rising and
falling edges of the state transitions of the baseband signal. While the
baseband only has two states, the timing code has five, the dot duration,
the dash duration, the intracharacter space duration, the intercharacter
space duration, and the word space duration. So Morse is not a binary
code. It is a quintenary code with five distinct symbols derived from five
distinct timing intervals and states.
Now this is one of the problems with Morse Code. The work of Nyquist and
Shannon has shown us that a code having more than two symbols requires
a better SNR to be successfully decoded than a code which only needs two
symbols. And to make matters worse, only two of Morse's five symbols are
voiced by OOK, so only 40% of the code is actually transmitted from one
station to another. This costs us 10*log(2/5) or 3.979 db at the receiver.
(The other three symbols are *inferred* against the noise background
by the apparent absence of signal.)
There are other deficits. Because the code doesn't use uniform symbol
lengths, a matched filter cannot be created to receive it. That costs us
more SNR margin. And because the code isn't fully voiced, we can't
use an orthogonal decoding matrix for it, and that costs an additional
3 db. So OOK Morse gives away enormous SNR advantages when
compared to a fully voiced binary coding conveying the same information
rate. That's why a fully voiced binary coded signal can always beat OOK
Morse in a harsh noise and interference environment. And that's what
is used by radio services which absolutely must get the message
through under the severest of conditions.
Under less severe conditions, Shannon's information theorem tells us
we can trade excess SNR capacity for a higher information rate. And
that's what digital signaling systems do when conditions are not extremely
harsh. Unfortunately, human by hand and ear operators can't take advantage
of that because they are extremely limited in the sending and receiving
speeds they can achieve by human limits on dexterity and by ear decoding.
(Note, the human visual system has 10,000 times the bandwidth of
the human aural system, so it can process information much faster
than an operator can by ear. So systems which present information
visually are vastly preferred to those limited to an aural presentation.
That's why TV (and reading) can be so absorbing. It is engaging more
of the mind's capacity to accept information than does radio. Of course
the content of the information has to have some value, dreck is dreck
no matter how it is presented.)
Tim Hynde
Cutie Boy wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 1998 07:58:05 -0500, Don & Cindy <dan...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >On one occasion I was on the receiving end 300 miles away and the signal
> >was S9.
>
> which band ?
>
> One one occasion, I was receiving 500 miles away station on 80m band
> S9.
>
On another occasion Cutie Boy said:
> > we use digital. we don't like analog and i don't know why we have
> > to be forced with analog.
and he still hasn't told us who's forcing him to use analog.
Tim, ka8ddz
Tom Repstad
Why don't we all agree to disagree and stop wasting bandwidth on the CW
debate... you guys might as well be arguing religion or politics... let the
thread die...
Tom
KB1CGA
Chuck Till
Have there been situations recently when hams met a critical need of
the public by communicating in an emergency for which CW was the
only usable technique? AFAIK, the approach is HF SSB and VHF FM
during real emergencies.
The amazing thing to me is that hams have as much spectrum as they
do today. Regarding HF, I suppose there aren't many pushing hams for
spectrum. But take a VHF/UHF scanner into a major metropolitan
area and compare the spectrum usage of ham bands with the spectrum
usage of other bands.
CW
Tom Repstad <r...@together.net> wrote in article
<34D51A7B...@together.net>...
I agree completly.
--
CW
KC7NOD
>
gle...@ibm.net
In <34d49ef2...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 19:17:20 GMT
(snip)
>>The stumbling block of this discussion also lies outside of the
>>technical discussion. That block is the practice of selective
>>discrimination against non-code operators.
>>
>>That block should remain. For a culture, it serves as a necessary
>>rite of passage. It fosters the education of our oldest and venerated
>>mode. Through the restrictions of the band plan it fosters its use.
>>As a distinction in one's standing within the culture, it should be
>>retained as a requirement for advancement.
>
>This is nothing more than religious/mystic argument.
(snip)
>If groups such as the ARRL and FISTS wish to perpetuate mystic
>rites of passage and other mythic pseudo-religious beliefs and
>activities as a voluntary matter, they have the right to do so. But
>under our system of government, they are not supposed to have
>use of the power of government to enforce those mystic beliefs
>or rites of passage on others as a price of access to public
>spectrum. That would be like forcing someone to convert to
>Catholicism in order to enter a section of a public park. It is
>a non-rational and non-secular requirement.
Actually, after speaking with many high level ARRL officials over
the years, I believe that the ARRL position is based on political
considerations. The ARRL membership, in surveys and in comments
to the ARRL board, have overwhelmingly supported retention of
the CW requirement.
Why? I don't know. The bottom line is that more folks who want to
keep the CW requirement have expressed their opinion than folks
in favor of dropping it. I don't think that religion enters into it, unless
you are willing to assert that most ARRL members are religious/mystic
in respect to CW.
The other political element is that proficiency in CW is by international
treaty a requirement for access to the HF ham bands. The recent WARC
conference *might* have been an opportunity to reverse this, but the
pro-CW folk out-politiked the anti-CW folk.
Gary's excellent rational arguments are all good reasons to drop the
CW requirement from the license tests. Gary's assertion that rational
discussion is the only way to resolve the issue is obviuosly not true.
Unfortunately, as the events of the last few weeks in Washington
demonstrate, politics is rarely rational. The continuance of the
CW requirement is a political decision. Thus, any resolution to the
issue must also be political in nature.
FWIW, the CW requirement for issuance of an amateur radio license
is an anachronism. Gary's technical reasons support this. Also, if
Amateur radio remains mired in the technology of the 1970's, it will
soon be replaced by a part 15-like system or an expanded CB-like
service where manufacturers can get rich selling fancy rigs and
30 feet high, 20dbd gain verticals for 160m. (160m so that my posting
is at least *marginally* on-topic! ;-) )
If the majority of hams really wants the CW requirement to go away,
they need to start speaking out en mass. Otherwise, it'll go away only
when Amateur radio goes away - which I fear will be soon.
73 de Glenn wb6w
**************************************************************
*** Two wrongs do not make a right, *
*** ...but three lefts do! *
*** *
*** - note: anti-spam return address in use *
*** remove the "six" from userid for return e-mail.*
**************************************************************
Gary Coffman
On 2 Feb 98 07:22:56 GMT, gle...@ibm.net wrote:
>Actually, after speaking with many high level ARRL officials over
>the years, I believe that the ARRL position is based on political
>considerations. The ARRL membership, in surveys and in comments
>to the ARRL board, have overwhelmingly supported retention of
>the CW requirement.
The most recently released survey of the ARRL membership showed
that 54% of the respondents favored retention of a Morse speed test
for US amateur HF access, just over half is hardly an overwhelming
level of support. And 52% supported its removal as an international
treaty requirement, apparently in the belief that each nation should be
free to make its own choice in the matter. And 72% of the respondents
reported that they never or rarely used Morse. Only 27% were regular
active Morse operators. So this is certainly a "do as I say, not as I
do" group.
It should also be noted that demographically ARRL members are
older than US amateurs in general, and represent a declining percentage
of US licensed amateurs (currently around 22% of the total if I recall
correctly). So the responses of ARRL members may not be reflective
of the opinions of the US amateur community in general. Historically,
the ARRL has taken trailing edge positions on issues of positive reform.
That is unsurprising in an organization composed primarily of older
people. ("Set in their ways" is the descriptive term most often applied
to older people, though there are certainly many exceptions.)
>Why? I don't know. The bottom line is that more folks who want to
>keep the CW requirement have expressed their opinion than folks
>in favor of dropping it. I don't think that religion enters into it, unless
>you are willing to assert that most ARRL members are religious/mystic
>in respect to CW.
I believe that they must be. There are no rational reasons to continue
using government power to enforce this "rite of passage", and that must
be what they consider it since nearly 3/4 of the respondents report that
they don't use Morse. If they considered it of real value, they would
practice what they preach. In this regard, FISTS deserves recognition
because they do indeed appear to practice what they preach. But the
value of Morse is an article of faith to both celibrants and non-celibrants
alike. It certainly isn't borne out in deeds by the majority, and there is
scant evidence for its technical merit. In fact there is overwhelming
evidence to the contrary that the majority refuses to acknowledge.
Now that's a clear sign of religious or mystic belief, IE refusal to be
swayed by demonstrated fact.
>The other political element is that proficiency in CW is by international
>treaty a requirement for access to the HF ham bands. The recent WARC
>conference *might* have been an opportunity to reverse this, but the
>pro-CW folk out-politiked the anti-CW folk.
I don't think that's the case. I believe the stated reason is the truth, IE
there was too much more important work to be done to allow the matter
to be considered. Lets face it, amateur radio is not a high priority with
the world's telecommunications authorities. I'll be pleasantly surprised
if they find time to consider it in 2003. That's mildly discouraging, but
it doesn't prevent us from flattening the Morse speed tests in the
meanwhile. The international treaty does not specify a speed, and
certainly not a staircase of speeds. There is no justification for
segregating amateurs using the same modes and power levels from
using the same frequencies merely because of an unrelated Morse
test speed, IE there is nothing qualitatively or quantitatively different
about operating on 14.173 MHz which requires a faster Morse test
than operating on 14.177 MHz. The current divisions are completely
capricious and arbitrary.
>Gary's excellent rational arguments are all good reasons to drop the
>CW requirement from the license tests. Gary's assertion that rational
>discussion is the only way to resolve the issue is obviuosly not true.
That isn't actually what I said, or if that's the way you read it, it isn't
what I was trying to say. For me, rationality is the key. And I try to
limit the bulk of my comments to a rational and technical level. That
is only one side of the issue of course. There is also a large component
of irrational and emotional argument in the debate. That *shouldn't*
carry any weight, but unfortumately it does.
>Unfortunately, as the events of the last few weeks in Washington
>demonstrate, politics is rarely rational. The continuance of the
>CW requirement is a political decision. Thus, any resolution to the
>issue must also be political in nature.
Yes. It is my hope that rational and technical points will contribute
toward a positive political resolution, but I agree that politics is
often swayed by irrational and emotional posturing in the face of
overwhelming rational and technical merit to the contrary.
>FWIW, the CW requirement for issuance of an amateur radio license
>is an anachronism. Gary's technical reasons support this. Also, if
>Amateur radio remains mired in the technology of the 1970's, it will
>soon be replaced by a part 15-like system or an expanded CB-like
>service where manufacturers can get rich selling fancy rigs and
>30 feet high, 20dbd gain verticals for 160m. (160m so that my posting
>is at least *marginally* on-topic! ;-) )
Some would say we are already there. And that does concern me.
When Morse code speed is held up as the most important measure
of the highest qualifications and aspirations of a radio amateur, there
is something fundamentally sick going on. We have a system which
incentivizes the wrong things, and for the wrong reasons. It shouldn't
come as a surprise that those incentives work, and that we've developed
a mass of amateurs since 1968 with the wrong skill sets and the wrong
outlook to advance into the 21st century of wireless communications,
though they are certainly well qualified to address the 19th century.
>If the majority of hams really wants the CW requirement to go away,
>they need to start speaking out en mass. Otherwise, it'll go away only
>when Amateur radio goes away - which I fear will be soon.
I hope it won't be soon. I have too many things left yet to do with amateur
radio. There is so much that is exciting which is yet to be done with signal
design and coding in amateur radio. We're entering an era of wireless
communications where the bulk of the advances will be via firmware and
software. That's the ultimate cottage industry, and amateurs can participate
at the very highest levels. We are at no disadvantage to the corporate worker
in his cubicle. In fact we have a very great advantage in that we are free
to take the road less travelled without concern for quarterly reports. In
other words, we have the only true freedom, the freedom to fail. We don't
have to stick to the safe, the tried and true, we can actively experiment
with radical new approaches. If we fail, our families won't starve. But if
we succeed, how exciting those successes are.
The Ah Ha! moments when something new finally works as intended, or
some new insight is gained, are the greatest pay we can hope to receive
in life. They are why I became a radio amateur and why I remain one. I hope
for an amateur radio where my grandchildren can have the same freedoms
and experience the same satisfactions. But I fear that won't be so if we
continue to turn amateur radio's face toward the past as a historical
re-enactor rather than toward an experimentalist future.
Michael P. Deignan
In article <34d5d688...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Gary Coffman <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>The most recently released survey of the ARRL membership showed
>that 54% of the respondents favored retention of a Morse speed test
>for US amateur HF access, just over half is hardly an overwhelming
>level of support.
54% is 5% more than what our last President was elected by. That didn't
stop him from saying the "voters gave [him] a mandate".
>And 52% supported its removal as an international
>treaty requirement, apparently in the belief that each nation should be
>free to make its own choice in the matter.
A reasonable position to take. Each country should be free to formulate
its own licensing requirements.
>And 72% of the respondents
>reported that they never or rarely used Morse. Only 27% were regular
>active Morse operators. So this is certainly a "do as I say, not as I
>do" group.
Absolutely not. Your assumption is people can operate whatever mode they
wish whenever they wish to. I do not feel comfortable operating morse
code in my truck (although my good friend, Ed Hare, apparently does.)
As such, I operate FM in the majority of my free ham-related time,
which is during my commute. When I'm at home, I operate 90% code and
10% SSB. But, I only operate at home about 25% of my operating time.
MD
--
-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
-- with my guns.
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Gary Coffman
On 2 Feb 1998 17:39:51 -0500, kh...@anomaly.ideamation.com.NO-SPAM (Michael P.
Deignan) wrote:
>In article <34d5d688...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
> Gary Coffman <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>that 54% of the respondents favored retention of a Morse speed test
>>for US amateur HF access, just over half is hardly an overwhelming
>>level of support.
>
>stop him from saying the "voters gave [him] a mandate".
But of course we know he lies.
>>And 52% supported its removal as an international
>>treaty requirement, apparently in the belief that each nation should be
>>free to make its own choice in the matter.
>
>A reasonable position to take. Each country should be free to formulate
>its own licensing requirements.
I agree, which is why I think relaxation of the ITU treaty mandatory Morse
testing requirement should have a reasonable chance of passage when
it finally comes up for a vote.
>>And 72% of the respondents
>>reported that they never or rarely used Morse. Only 27% were regular
>>active Morse operators. So this is certainly a "do as I say, not as I
>>do" group.
>
>Absolutely not. Your assumption is people can operate whatever mode they
>wish whenever they wish to. I do not feel comfortable operating morse
>code in my truck (although my good friend, Ed Hare, apparently does.)
>As such, I operate FM in the majority of my free ham-related time,
>which is during my commute. When I'm at home, I operate 90% code and
>10% SSB. But, I only operate at home about 25% of my operating time.
Still, that's 22.5% of your operating time spent on CW. That's more than
"never or rarely" isn't it?
Michael P. Deignan
In article <34d76025....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Gary Coffman <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Still, that's 22.5% of your operating time spent on CW. That's more than
>"never or rarely" isn't it?
Its certainly greater than "never", but is it more than "rarely"?
That's an objective determination.
Don Curtis
In article <34d0bed8....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman) wrote:
<
<stuff snipped out>
>
>I'm not surprised. Russia is a third world economy which attempted
>to field a first world military. But aside from the trappings of nuclear
>weapons and missiles, it never succeeded. Much of its infrastructure
>is still primitive. They even still make vacuum tubes over there. But
>they do know better. Some of the best data algorithms have come
>from Russians. They just don't yet have the microelectronics
>infrastructure to field them properly on the necessary scale. We
>don't have that excuse.
>
>The 219 MHz amateur band is restricted to point to point data emissions
>only.
>
>Gary
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
>534 Shannon Way | We break it |
>Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
What's wrong with tubes? In many cases...they are FAR superior to
transistors. In particular, they can withstand over voltage much better.
Many years ago....I worked on several projects that involved testing
electronic equipment for the effects of a large EMF pulse...such as that
generated by a nearby nuclear blast...silicon parts failed, tubes survived.
For everyday use....consumer electronics, etc....yes, the transistor is the
far better choice...but in certain specific applications, tubes are superior.
Don
Don Curtis
In article <34d1f83c...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>, ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:29:33 -0000, "Reg Edwards" <G4fgq...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
>>Gary,
>>
>>I think you are a victim of your own Yankee propaganda.
>
>And I think you don't read very well.
>
>>You are one of the people who think the Japanese never invented
>>anything but are very good copiers.
>
>I am well aware of Japanese inventive prowess, and more pertinently
>to this topic, I am well aware of Japanese technical manufacturing
>prowess. What does that have to do with the poor technical infrastructure
>of the economic components of the former Soviet Union?
>
Out of curiosity...can you name something the Japanese invented from scratch,
not something where they improved on existing technology...they'd done lots of
that.
j...@vivid.net
On 1998-02-03 dac_n...@compuserve.com(DonCurtis) said:
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Sure! Let's start with our own shortwave and ham radio hobbies. Ever hear
of the Yagi antenna?
How about the transistor radio? Americans invented the transistor in 1947,
but nobody was in much of a hurry to find a practical use for it until Sony
marketed that first transistor radio in 1952. I think the first Regency set
was made in America in 1954 and Texas Instruments weighed in with the second
Amercian line in 1955. The first fully-digital, direct-frequency-entry,
computerized full-coverage portable radio was called the ICF-2001 which
debuted in 1980, and you know whose name was on that one!
The compact disk technology and the hardware to record, produce and play the
disks was a joint development by Philips of the Netherlands and Sony of
Japan. The first practical VCR was made by Sony in 1976. RCA had a
prototype that cost 20 times as much and was ten times larger than the
original BetaMax and the tv set in which it was mounted, back in 1958 but
they never did anything with it.
That should be good enough for starters!
Reply to Brent Reynolds
j...@randomc.com
As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841.
Net-Tamer V 1.10.1 - Registered
Don Curtis
NONE of that was invented in Japan...it was all improvements on current
technology. Japan did not invent antennas, transistors, CD technology, or
video tape technology. They DID improve and expand the uses of such
things...but that wasn't the question or the point....none of the original
work was invented in Japan.
Taking your examples....Yagi is just another form of directional
antenna...more popular to be sure, but not entirely unique. I can't dispute
who had the first transistor based radio, but you are confusing "practical
use" with "consumer use." Building super computers is certainly a practical
thing to do...but certainly not a consumer item <grin>. Taking transistors
and putting them into a consumer radio certainly was not the first "practical"
use of transistors. Digital tuning radios are simply an improvement on "dial
string hooked to a knob and variable capacitor" technology. TV studios were
using video tape long before 1976...made by Ampex. Etc.
The Japanese are very good at what they do, but in my opinion, they are not
base technology inventors.
Don
Investigation Centre
>The Japanese are very good at what they do, but in my opinion, they are not
>base technology inventors.
>
>Don
there are now phones... the watches.
say the number you want to dial to the watch and you are on your
way... in Japan.
______________________________________________________________________
Code Sucker (également connu comme Joli Garçon & M@S@)
Indicatif d'appel de radioamateur: VA2QRU & VE7JPN
Étudient @ Informatique et Mathématiques d'Université McGill
Montréal, Québec, Canada
CÉ: code_...@radiotelephone.net.ham
Pedro Blanco
Don Curtis wrote:
[long snip]
>The Japanese are very good at what they do, but in my opinion, they are not
>base technology inventors.
When you guys mentioned "Sony" and "invention", first thing that came to my
mind was "D1". A digital component video format, the first one to
play/record the full color TV bandwith, lossless. It *revolutionized*
digital effects for TV, starting about a decade ago. That is, coupled with
Quantel's Harry, a non-linear editing and effects system -- a British
invention, incidentally.
Of course, this is not base technology. But what is it?
Is there a point in (or behind) asserting that the Japanese are not good
base technology inventors, as opposed to, say, the Americans? Because I
can't see it. What is it that makes "base technology" so special? How does
it relate to "science", on one side, and to "applied technology" on the
other? And to "creativity"? Perhaps you are implying that Americans are more
creative than the Japanese? Does that include you? In other words, are you
implying that you are more creative than the average Japanese? Including
those you can find in American labs?
--Pedro
Don Curtis
In article <34f57...@news.arrakis.es>, "Pedro Blanco" <p...@arrakis.es>
wrote:
"racial" or "ethnic" reasons for what I say. There is absolutely NONE. What
I am saying has NOTHING to do, whatsoever, with thinking one is better than
another. I am just simply stating my opinion based on my observations.
As an example, in my opinion, Sony TVs are FAR superior to other TVs, even
other Japanese TV brands. The Japanese didn't invent TV, but they sure
improved on it. From my perspective as a consumer, that is very good.
Base technology is what drives (down the road) inovation and progress. Much
base technology is driven by government, not private industry. In particular,
in the US, programs like the space program, and "star wars" research have
pushed the technology envelope significantly. That's base technology. But,
while under government grant, much base technology was invented, the
government didn't move the technology into consumer hands. Private companies
did that.
And so, the difference, between doing base research vs improving on base
research could simply be a difference between funding sources. In the US, the
government heavily invests in base technology research. In Japan, private
companies heavily invest in improving on that base technology.
Private companies can't afford (generally...there are some exceptions) the
billions and trillions of dollars and decades of research necessary. But they
can afford to learn from that research and put it to practical use.
So you see...it is not an "ethnic" or "racial" thing....it is not who is
better than who....it is a fact of life based on priorities of those who have
the money to do base research. And typically, that is the government. In the
US, military spending drives most of the base research. In Japan, the
military isn't a priority.
Don