| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.07.00 23:04l 168 Lines 6310 Bytes #-9312 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_192B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/192B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<DB0ACC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000717/1710Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:61930 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_192B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 00 18:07:12 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_192B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> it's not the most efficient means to transfer data. How long do you
> think it would take to send a 1 MB binary file at 20 WPM CW and what
> are the odds of it being received "error free"?
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:20:07 GMT
From: Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
>
>> The point about the internet gateways is simple: sure they are fun,
>> sure you and the other ham involved MIGHT be using ham radio
>> for the uplink and downlink, but what's the point? All either one of
>> you did was make a local contact on some VHF/UHF band.
>> Whoop-de-doo, big deal. Nearly zero radio skill involved.
>
Amen. 'Bout as "radio" as an infrared mouse.
>
>Calculating fresnel zone clearances, so you can determine and build
>your towers to produce reliable links is "no radio skill", huh?
>
I can work the world without a tower or a phone line or any servers, I
just toss any wire up into a tree and I'm up and running globally. And
I don't necessairily need AC mains to do that. Particularly in hobbies
simplicity is a major attractor. The pushups you're going thru just to
be able to tap into somebody else's very local Internet connection is
complex as hell and has little or no ROI the way the huge bulk of hams
see it. And, yeah, I've asked around just to make sure it's not me.
For a lousy $20/month connection we can have it all without any towers
and the rest of the paraphernalia.
>
>How
>about mounting your radios/computers in survivable NEMA boxes on high
>towers to cut down feedline loses?
>
NEMA boxes full of radios at 50ft?? Ya mean like the cellphone crowd
has been doing or years? Let me count the times I've dangled 150-200
ft up to hang 40m yagis . . try it, you need the "experience".
>
>
>> "... the transmission medium is just a little different ..." ???
>> Yes, it IS different. It is not radio! Duh.
>
>So, let me get this straight - the electrical signals passing thru your
>radio are OK, but those passing thru the Internet, somehow aren't?
>
It's all mindless rhetoric. It's technically possible to build an
Internet remote access utility based on RF links to landline
connnections to Internet servers. There are hams out there would like
to be able to do that. Fine: THEY/YOU gotta quit babbling about it,
get past all the reality checks and DO that if they/you expect it to
go anywhere.
>
So get off your duffs and make it happen on any broad scale and us old
HF farts will thus have no choice but to eat crow as you digigeeks
rise from the mists and take Ham Radio into it's digital 21st century.
Which as I recall was a big rallying point back in the code test war.
>
We're out here waiting for the beef . . .
>
>> ... Hank
>>
>
>Stewart - N0MHS
>
w3rv
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:54:53 -0400
From: "Bob Lewis" <rlewis@staffnet.com>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
> How much "real" information is in that 1 MB file?
>
Every byte is "real" information, Peter. If you get one byte wrong the
program may not run at all.
> My point was about "efficiency" and its' "simplicity".
>
I guess I missed your point. The previous poster commented on how we
depend on the work of others (example: ICs) to build a modern digital
communications system and I thought you responded by telling her that
you can do it with a spark transmitter and a crystal detector. I say
that's not "modern digital communications" but I agree that it is
"simplicity" and it doesn't depend upon any man-made infrastructure.
Its "efficiency" depends entirely upon what kind and how much data you
want to transfer. As I said, it's not very "efficient" if you need to
transfer a 1 MB exe file. If what you need to do is transmit an "SOS"
from a lifeboat then it'll suit you quite well (assuming there's still
someone on the other end who can receive your SOS :-) ). If you enjoy
chatting with another person using Morse then it'll also suit you
quite well. No need to pretend that CW is modern digital
communications - CW can stand quite well on its own for its simplicity
and personal enjoyment.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:43:48 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <22r3nso618kacglekd318rusq3st6l29kk@4ax.com>,
Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
> For a lousy $20/month connection we can have it all without any towers
> and the rest of the paraphernalia.
$39/mo for cable modem speeds.
> >How
> >about mounting your radios/computers in survivable NEMA boxes on high
> >towers to cut down feedline loses?
> >
> NEMA boxes full of radios at 50ft?? Ya mean like the cellphone crowd
> has been doing or years? Let me count the times I've dangled 150-200
> ft up to hang 40m yagis . . try it, you need the "experience".
Let me start slow, man. But anyway, the fall from 50 feet will almost
kill me just as good as that from 200 feet:) Besides, I'm going to
have enough trouble getting a permit for a 48ft. tower.
Where do you get those linesman's belts that you attach yourself with
while your working on the tower?
> >
> >> "... the transmission medium is just a little different ..." ???
> >> Yes, it IS different. It is not radio! Duh.
> >
> >So, let me get this straight - the electrical signals passing thru
your
> >radio are OK, but those passing thru the Internet, somehow aren't?
> >
> It's all mindless rhetoric. It's technically possible to build an
> Internet remote access utility based on RF links to landline
> connnections to Internet servers. There are hams out there would like
> to be able to do that. Fine: THEY/YOU gotta quit babbling about it,
> get past all the reality checks and DO that if they/you expect it to
> go anywhere.
You are absolutely right.
> So get off your duffs and make it happen on any broad scale and us old
> HF farts will thus have no choice but to eat crow as you digigeeks
> rise from the mists and take Ham Radio into it's digital 21st century.
> Which as I recall was a big rallying point back in the code test war.
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_192C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
