| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 02.07.00 23:45l 260 Lines 7332 Bytes #-9414 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_176B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/176B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0SAA<DB0TTM<DB0SWR<DB0HBN<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000702/1330Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:57648 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_176B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 00 14:23:00 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_176B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
And I want to add to the licensing requirements a series of questions on:
Source Coding
Huffman
Arithmetic
Universal
Lempel-Ziv
Markov
etc...
Channel Coding
Lattice Coding
Trellis Coding
Turbo Coding
etc...
Signal Detection Algorithms
Maximum Likelihood Decoding
MAP Decoding
Sequential Decoding
Adaptive Equalization
etc...
Multiple Access Protocols
CSMA-CD
CDMA
etc. etc..
So that at the very least we will have a few folks on the bands and on this
so-called digital NG who actually know what they are talking about and not
mouthing some Bill Gates or Larry Ellison BS...
Get with it guys, Morse CW is digital, can be high speed, and it is
efficient adn cost effective in the most modern terms.
The manual and mental processing of CW in real time by human beings should
never again be the subject of tests and exams for an amateur license.
But... one should be tested on the communications theory and practice behind
digital communications and in particular of one of the most efficient and
practical means of digital communications, Morse Code!
Put more questions in the FCC exam question pools on digital communications,
in particular force the examinees to explain why CW has such a high
communications efficiencywhen compared to other less efficient digital
modes.
So there I said it...
Nuff said...
Peter K1PO
Peter K1PO
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8jiq4r$lu8$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <1uV65.169$JQ6.16999484@news.interact.net.au>,
> "Graham Ranft" <ranftg@interact.net.au> wrote:
> > G'day & Greetings!
> >
> > I've used both CW and digital. [1200 and 9600 bd. sats packet and
> pactor I]
>
> 9600 is high speed, huh?
>
> > There is still, I think nothing, quite like the skill and pleasure of
> a good CW
> > qso-mine was a cw qso via oscar 13 sending a message from a daughter
> to
> > her father on the otherside of the world in hospital.
>
> You could have gotten that message there a lot faster with a "real" hi-
> speed (>1Mbps) Internet connection.
>
> > Im am now not active, but if I were to go on air again it would be
> using CW.
>
> Roadrunner, roadrunner, roadrunner goes BEEP-BEEP...
>
> > Let us not flame each other but respect our differing interests.
>
> I don't mind that you like to use Morse(I've even used it on
> occasion). But please don't tell me not to flame the pro-code
> requirements die-hards. Those backwards-thinking nincompoops
> are "supporting Morse" for a TOTALLY different reason.
>
> Supporting Morse Code and supporting Morse Code requirments are two
> different things.
>
> > Graham formerly VK7ZO and VK1ZO
> > Graham in Canberra Australia
>
> Stewart - N0MHS
>
> --
> Wireless High-Speed Networking Information:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html
> Public Radio Services Information:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio2.html
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:38:23 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
In article <8jivfp$71g$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I say down with Morse Code licensing requirements, but up with Morse
Code!
>
> And I want to add to the licensing requirements a series of questions
on:
>
> Source Coding
> Huffman
> Arithmetic
> Universal
> Lempel-Ziv
> Markov
> etc...
> Channel Coding
> Lattice Coding
> Trellis Coding
> Turbo Coding
> etc...
> Signal Detection Algorithms
> Maximum Likelihood Decoding
> MAP Decoding
> Sequential Decoding
> Adaptive Equalization
> etc...
> Multiple Access Protocols
> CSMA-CD
> CDMA
> etc. etc..
>
> So that at the very least we will have a few folks on the bands and
on this
> so-called digital NG who actually know what they are talking about
and not
> mouthing some Bill Gates or Larry Ellison BS...
>
> Get with it guys, Morse CW is digital, can be high speed, and it is
> efficient adn cost effective in the most modern terms.
>
> The manual and mental processing of CW in real time by human beings
should
> never again be the subject of tests and exams for an amateur license.
>
> But... one should be tested on the communications theory and practice
behind
> digital communications and in particular of one of the most efficient
and
> practical means of digital communications, Morse Code!
>
> Put more questions in the FCC exam question pools on digital
communications,
> in particular force the examinees to explain why CW has such a high
> communications efficiencywhen compared to other less efficient digital
> modes.
>
> So there I said it...
Totally agree with everything you said.
> Nuff said...
>
> Peter K1PO
>
Stewart - N0MHS
--
Wireless High-Speed Networking Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html
Public Radio Services Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio2.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 01:29:12 GMT
From: hamish@cloud.net.au (Hamish Moffatt VK3SB)
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> CW is not low speed. And... CW is digital!
Not this line again Peter. It's getting old.
> And... even when processed by humans on the receiving end the signal
> processing techniques are of the most modern kind, utilizing both CSMA-CD,
> source coding and maximul likelihood (a.k.a Viterbi) decoding.
CSMA yes, CD not really.
> Let's stop trashing CW and leave it where it belongs as the; longest
> standing, most cost efficient, most practically effective, human, and
> machine decodable high speed digital mode in existence!
But let's not promote it above other modes either. It doesn't deserve that.
I'd like to see you implement FEC in human-to-human CW!
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:20:51 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
Hamish:
Hello, how's the wx down under mate?
Well, Hamish, my friend, this is not an "old" line, and I have but just
begun.
Here in America now with the most recent FCC rulings on test requirements,
wer'e past the "kill CW reading ability on the test" problem.
Perhaps now we can all get back to other less emotional issues and really
begin to get ham radio folks to , understand, and answer exam questions on
digital communications.
Most of the "posters" on this NG, especially those digital "wannabes" who
trash CW, simply know nothing about digital communications, and ... it
shows...
Let's start educating them! And... I say let's use CW as a simple example
that most could readily understand and anlayze in very modern communications
and information theory terms, just as Morse and Vail did almost 150 years
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_176C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
