| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 03.07.00 23:54l 190 Lines 6927 Bytes #-9412 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_178B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/178B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<
PI8WNO<PI8HGL
Sent: 000703/1801Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:57998 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_178B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 00 19:07:51 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_178B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
There, that should create a whole new bunch of Hams to fill the spectrum,
which will be completely unlike anything being done now.
Steve
P.S. You're still in the wrong newsgroup.
"Peter O. Brackett" wrote
>
> I feel that today the lack of such theoretical and practical digital
> communications material in the amateur radio examinations is a travesty.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:01:13 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
X-Server-Date: 2 Jul 2000 20:01:19 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu
Steve:
Hey I did not start these CW-Digital threads, I am just a passer by... don't
blame me.
BTW... What about drug and alcohol testing?
Heh, heh...
OK, OK, Steve I give up.
Let's just give out ham licenses to everyone who asks -or- eliminate the
license altogether for digital operators!
Let's define a digital operators radio license and force the digital
operators to operate from a keyboard attached to a computer running a MS
application on Windows which controls their transceiver and kilowatt
amplifier and protects them from causing harm to themselves and others...
They can measure bandwidth in characters per second, energy in information
theoretic terms such as nats, and stuff like that... and not bother with
those pesky Hz, Joules and stuff!
After all... there is no longer much of a chance for risking human life by
the use of radio transmitters.
Steve, did you ever hear about or look at the digital radio operator's
certificate that the Canadians implemented back in the 1970's?
What ever happened to that license?
Steve what do you propose for licensing for digital operators?
Peter K1PO
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:slv0pougop38@corp.supernews.com...
> The FAA is the better model for testing. Not only do you use a
> computer to test, and get an instant grade; indeed, you need to
> take a practical test with a certified person.
>
> These steps are also much more costly.
>
> Here's my proposal then. Each Ham must pass a Class 3 Flight Physical,
> and not be handicapped in any way. Hams must not be allowed to
> use strollers, crutches, or wheel-chairs of any kind. They must not have
> high blood pressure, and have a 10 year history of no tobacco, alcohol,
> or other contraband drugs as listed by the Surgeon General.
>
> Each Ham will be required to have a mentor for 20 hours, and solo for
> another 20. During this solo, the candidate must build a transmitter and
> receiver from scratch, and learn to operate CW at a minimum of 20 WPM.
>
> A Ham ticket will last for 36 months for individuals 30 years old or less,
> and 24 months for those older than 30. Each renewal will require a
> written and practical test. The practical may result in write-ups that
> require retraining, and the Ham cannot operate until retested. If the Ham
> fails to retest in 15 days, the license is revoked.
>
> All Hams must wear a tie and long sleeve white shirts when operating.
> Women can't wear pants, and their hair must not be in curlers. Clothing
> designed for underwear cannot be worn outside other clothes. Hams
> cannot operate while in the nude or wearing underwear.
>
> There, that should create a whole new bunch of Hams to fill the spectrum,
> which will be completely unlike anything being done now.
>
> Steve
> P.S. You're still in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> "Peter O. Brackett" wrote
> >
> > I feel that today the lack of such theoretical and practical digital
> > communications material in the amateur radio examinations is a travesty.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 16:49:23 -0400
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:26:11 -0500, "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>CW is a digital mode, it can be high speed, it was the "first" mode as well,
>and it is both machine and human decodable.
While the OOK modulation typically used is in a sense digital, ie an AM
encoding
of on and off states of the baseband signal, Morse Code is not digital. It is
a timing
code, all the coding information is in the timing edges, not in distinct
levels. While
ideally that timing is derived from a fixed clock, in practice it generally is
not and
must be considered more of an analog process.
>Remarkable!
>
>Think about it, it is in fact the only digital mode that is decodable both
>by human operators and machines!
>
>Think about that! Try decoding Baudot RTTY by ear, or PacTor, or Clover...
Actually, some people can decode Baudot RTTY by ear. Of course the
fact that it is normally sent at 60 WPM or faster makes that a bit difficult,
but slow it down to normal CW operating speeds and it is not difficult
to decode by ear. In fact FSK is somewhat better (6 dB) than OOK
because the ear is deciding between two distinct signal states and not
between the presence and absense of a single signal against noise,
which is a harder detection problem.
In the old days, when using arc and alternator transmitters where it was
technically difficult to generate OOK, operators used FSK to send Morse.
It worked better than OOK then, and still does.
>Try high speed CW on HF with a keyboard program and high speed CW reader
>program, it often works as well as, or better than, at the same speeds, more
>modern digital modes on the HF channel.
But it almost always occupies a larger bandwidth. The sharp timing edges
essential of Morse coding causes the occupied bandwidth to be larger than
modulation techniques using continuous phase modulations.
>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!
>
>In today's technology of the week era, what other robust industrial strength
>digital transmisson technology can match CW in its' price/performance
>characteristics, and its' pioneering use of most of today's so-called modern
>communications technologies?
>
> Peter K1PO
>
>"Graham Ranft" <ranftg@interact.net.au> wrote in message
>news:1uV65.169$JQ6.16999484@news.interact.net.au...
>> G'day & Greetings!
>>
>> I've used both CW and digital. [1200 and 9600 bd. sats packet and pactor
>I]
>>
>> 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.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_178C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
