| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 19.03.00 10:11l 181 Lines 6543 Bytes #-9542 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_76C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/76C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<OK0PHL<OK0PBB<RW6HQN<UT5UG<RZ6HWL<HA3PG<
SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000319/0540Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:58016 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31592 ; Sat, 18 Mar 00 13:31:58 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018417 ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:12:28 MET
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:07:57 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_76C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/76C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
packet 15 years ago when packet was a hot item. Packet today is all
but dead except for spot posts. Go figger why I should be in any big
hurry to go digital.
>
>See you on the bands.
>
w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:41:01 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On 15 Mar 2000 15:54:07 -0800, brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
wrote:
>
>Did you know that you nearly can telephone every country in the world for
>less money than it would cost to set up a DX-contest grade ham station?
>
If the money was the issue I wouldn't make the phone calls or buy the
radios. What is a "contest grade station'? What do you figger a
"contest grade station" costs?
>
>How many DXpeditions carry INMARSAT or GlobalStar phones with them for
>when they seriously need to communicate?
>
Beats me but if you paid any serious attention to the dxpeditions
you'd find that in most cases all comms are done on the ham bands when
they're out in the deep boonies.
>
>With the possible exception of 20 meters, the argument can be made
>that we don't use enough of our ham bands to justify keeping them.
>
True on VHF/UHF but not on HF which I think is we're talking about
here. There are no visible threats to HF ham radio. The current drift
is toward expansion of the HF ham bands a la the three new 1979 WARC
bands and the low-profile work currently underway which is expected to
lead to a new ham band around 5Mhz. There is a distinct dividing line
at 30Mhz, what is good for the goose on VHF/UHF is not good for the
gander on HF wrt to threats and justification.
>
>High-bandwidth NEEDS are one of the few ways we can justify all the
>spectrum we have.
>
What are these "needs"? How many hams "need" high-bandwidths on HF vs.
how many do not "need" high-bandwidths and where is there any
indication that the FCC or any commercial or military interests are
threatening our HF space?
>
>I think we should experiment with bandwidth-sucking high-speed data
>radio, digital voice radio, spread spectrum, complex modulations,
>multicarrier, images, video, file sharing, all kinds of stuff.
>
>Look forward, not back. Jet cars, not buggywhips.
> - Brian
>
In the first place there would be no real "experimentation" involved.
All any of these would essentially do is replace hardwired Internet
connections with modems which feed radios which feed antennas instead
of feeding twisted pairs or coax cables or fiber optics
transmission/reception media. This general category of technologies
already exists in profusion, much of it could go on the air very
shortly if it was permitted so there's no technological lightning or
magic or "advancing the state of the art" in any of it.
>
The big problem of course being that none of it would be RADIO, the
radio would obviously become incidental to the objectives you list
above, radio would just be another modem mode.
>
A bit of simple freshman math will clearly indicate that even if the
entire ham HF spectrum were to be turned over to wideband digital
modes the collected sum bandwidth would be miniscule compared with,
for instance, the bandwidth avaialble on the upcoming light pipes.
>
I strongly urge you and others with similar bents start making noises
at the FCC to allocate, say, 2Ghz of unrestricted amateur operating
space on the light band so that you can do your wide things. It's just
another bandwidth resource like HF radio except 'way better, right?
Why not? Plus there's no QSB, no Riley, no code tests and it's open
24/365 and the baud rate would be mind-bogg;ing, just what you're
looking for, how sweet can it get? There's your jet car.
>
As far as jet cars go I rode in one of the fleet of demo pink & gray
1956 Plymouth Belvedere turbine-powered "family jet cars". Which were
one of most memorable flops ever to come out of Detroit and nobody has
been stupid enough to try that crap again.
>
Brian Kelly w3rv
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:56:05 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> but these Techs-to-Become Generals ain't done the HF/VHF whole
> nine yards thus comes some jaundice.
Your pretty funny. I'm rolling, stop! stop! my sides hurt...
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:15:20 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> As far as jet cars go I rode in one of the fleet of demo pink & gray
> 1956 Plymouth Belvedere turbine-powered "family jet cars". Which were
> one of most memorable flops ever to come out of Detroit and nobody has
> been stupid enough to try that crap again.
It wasn't a flop, it was a concept car. I think the first ones were produced
in 1953 or 1954. There was no way it was going to compete with
gasoline at 25 cents a gallon, although kerosene was a big seller at gas
stations even in *my* youth, but disappeared in the late 60's.
What the real flop was, is the pollution we all endure now. I remember
when the sky was blue, and you could see stars at night. You have to go
to North Dakota to see that now. Plus, we wouldn't have had all those
muscle-cars and SUV's to consume Iraqi oil at 3 MPG, and lead poison
the lakes... So maybe it's a good thing turbines were never marketed
(or flopped as you say).
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:44:35 -0800
From: "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net>
Subject: NOS (and derivatives) don't send FRMRs ?
Rob Janssen wrote:
>
> Dana H. Myers K6JQ <Dana@Source.Net> wrote:
>
> >I've recently implemented AX.25 LAPB in Java as part of a packet server
project,
> >and noticed that NOS never sends FRMR even when it thinks it should
(receiving
> >an invalid N(r) in an ack). NOS seems to have been this way in 1992; I'm
curious
> >why it never sends FRMR; anyone remember this ancient history?
>
> Sending FRMR often leads to pathetic cycles of re-connect, send some
> packets, same error, FRMR, and all over again.
I rather suspected this.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_76D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
