| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:26l 213 Lines 7526 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_72E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DB0CEL<DB0FD<DB0VER<DB0PDF<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1116Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55990 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31389 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 10:21:16 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018364 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:32:55 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:26:23 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_72E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/72E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> think I'm allowed to have my preferences, yes?
If you wish to remain in a time warp, by all means do so. But please
allow the rest of us to move on (i.e., don't knock us).
>.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Mar 2000 01:00:45 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
> If you're talking significant legislated setasides on the primary HF
> bands for the convenience of a few digital experimenters to do their
> thing I'll go to the wall to the extent possible to defeat any such
> proposal as lame as such efforts might be. Stuff anything even
Let me get this straight -- you oppose experimentation on the HF bands then?
I cannot understand why experimentation is a second class citizen to
a ragchew. The other way around would be appropriate.
Hamish VK3SB
>.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Mar 2000 01:24:21 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
> soldering irons and computers at all, it's just not my thing and I
> think I'm allowed to have my preferences, yes?
Sure, why does that mean they can't have theirs, eg some spectrum
to experiment with... ? After all, you have yours to DX in.
Hamish
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:44:37 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> It strikes me that in order to compare ssb, etc. with
> digital voice modes on this basis we need to start with establishing
> the ratio for ssb. What is the "ssb ratio of effectiveness" based on
> thruput divided by bandwidth?
Ballpark SSB: 200wpm/3KHz = 67 words per KHz
CW is probably double that figure but, of course, CW requires many
operators to equal the throughput of one SSB operator. But if you
want to "extend the topic", we can factor power into the equation to
talk about words per watt per kilohertz which starts to sound
familiar, huh?
> Ducky wunnerful: I'll take the opportunity to "extend" the topic,
> thankew. I gotta live long enough to see the collection of NCTA HF
> digital comms proponents in this NG get off their dead butts and make
> any new digital thingey actually happen anywhere on any ham band.
Well, American hams don't have time to stop arguing about ham radio
ceasing to exist on April 15 in order to invent anything. The German
hams seem to be excelling in digital data modes and the English hams
seem to be leading the pack in digital voice.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:10:33 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:30:42 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
wrote:
>Brian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>> >But the question is not how much spectrum it occupies.
>> >
>> Aw c'mon, Cecil, sure it does.
>
>That is out of context, Brian. Throughput divided by bandwidth is
>the measure of a mode's effectiveness.
>
That's very good Cecil, and very understandable simple arithmetic
which yields a real and positive numerical ratio. If what we're
looking for is spectral efficiency, which I assume is the case, modes
should therefore be compared with each other via this ratio of
effectiveness. It strikes me that in order to compare ssb, etc. with
digital voice modes on this basis we need to start with establishing
the ratio for ssb. What is the "ssb ratio of effectiveness" based on
thruput divided by bandwidth?
>
>
>> >The question
>> >is how much throughput and voice recovery quality is accomplished
>> >in that spectrum.
>
As if the FCC has any interest whatsoever in "quality" . . never mind.
While we're at it how do the physics quantify "quality" and where does
the "quality" term show up in the Ratio of Effectiveness equation and
what are the variables and constants in that term?
>
>> That brings "philosophical" issues into the game.
>
>Throughput divided by bandwidth is not "philosophical".
>It is simple physics.
>
Ducky wunnerful: I'll take the opportunity to "extend" the topic,
thankew. I gotta live long enough to see the collection of NCTA HF
digital comms proponents in this NG get off their dead butts and make
any new digital thingey actually happen anywhere on any ham band. Like
by putting as much time and effort into talking the FCC into allowing
the subject digital mode to be tested on HF as they have invested in
the code test issue. Hot air being worth two cents per cubit and all
that.
>
>> ... what I do care
>> about is being able to squeeze the incoming intelligence out of the
>> other guy's voice transmission ...
>
>There's zero intelligence in the average ham transmission. :-)
>
I sure as hell can't argue with that !! Unless of course it's a new
one . . . on cw.
>--
>73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:14:35 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On 12 Mar 2000 01:00:45 GMT, Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
wrote:
>In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
>> If you're talking significant legislated setasides on the primary HF
>> bands for the convenience of a few digital experimenters to do their
>> thing I'll go to the wall to the extent possible to defeat any such
>> proposal as lame as such efforts might be. Stuff anything even
>
>Let me get this straight -- you oppose experimentation on the HF bands then?
>
I fully support experimentation on all freqs. Within common sense
limits involving the rights of other spectrum users.
>
>I cannot understand why experimentation is a second class citizen to
>a ragchew. The other way around would be appropriate.
>
I'm not at all opposed to experimentation as such. I'm opposed to
reallocating meaurable chunks of mainstream ham HF spectrum space in
order for the few experimenters to do their thing at the cost of
interference and reduced space for the already overcrowded premiere HF
segments. The history of the introduction of new modes into ham radio
is a litany of sucesses accomplished within the confines of existing
regulations and in fair competition with other modes digital and
analog in the real world. PSK31 is just one example. You digital types
need to quit babbling about it, cut the Internet "discussions" and put
it on the air and let the cards fall where they may.
>
>Hamish VK3SB
>
w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:05:28 -0600
From: "Richard McCollum" <rmccoll@radiks.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
The history of the introduction of new modes into ham radio
> is a litany of sucesses accomplished within the confines of existing
> regulations and in fair competition with other modes digital and
> analog in the real world. PSK31 is just one example. You digital types
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_72F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
