| |
VE2HAR > MT63 10.03.05 14:41l 140 Lines 4814 Bytes #-7497 (0) @ WW
BID : 30433SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: [MT63] Re: 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0ACH<DB0MKA<DB0SGL<DB0FHK<DB0ACC<DB0EA<
DB0RES<ON0AR<VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/1222z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41041 $:30433sentto
Mostly bad reasoning but let's try this again...
I note that it was Walt, and not you to whom I addressed my
questions. But that's OK - have a shot!
On 10 Mar 2005 at 5:07, wb8wka wrote:
> Brian
> I'll address some of your specific questions. My
> response to that message, which didn't make it to this list, you do
> with it as you will.
>
> --- In MT63@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Carling" <bcarling@c...> wrote: >
> OK fascinating Walt, but do explain to me WHY it is that we need > to
> send so much high speed data on HF?
>
> Just like your income, more is better, which is not to say, you
> shouldn't economize. Are you still happy with your 2400 bps phone
> modem? Believe it or not (and I am dating myself here) my amateur
> radio connection to the internet, was faster then my phone dialup at
> one point. Amateur radio CAN be that shining star on that hill, if we
> just let it. Yes, it is a quaint old hobby for old men, it always will
> be, but it can push the limits. We just have to let it. We can have
> our cake and eat it too.
You have NOT answered the question.
You have not even said WHAT IT IS you want to send at 56 KBPS
over HF.
Going on and on about cake and dollars is only symbolic.WHAT do
you want to send so fast? Since you couldn't answer then I guess
you have no idea.
> > Wouldn't VHF and satellites do a lot better without ruining things
> for
> > the regular CW and phone operators who need their space?
>
> Or we could all get on the internet, and that way the SWL's would have
> a nice quiet band. The point is to utilize the bands, to gain
> experince with them, to advance the state of the art, and ultimately
> to have a useful service in times of need.
In times of need? WHY is 20 kHz so "useful" - so you can send
pictures and audio in times of emergency?
> > By the way the MT63 signals are 1 kHz wide.
> Last time I looked, they also had a 500hz and 2khz mode.
YOUR statement was that MT63 is 2 kHz wide, period.
OK then please tell us the callsign of even ONE station
that you can spot today using 2 kHz width on the air with
MT63 at 2 kHz - you will not be able to.
> > We don't need to keep making wider and wider digital signals
> > and if the digital audio needs to be 20 kHz wide, what is the point?
> Mostly for coding gain. That is why when the Pactor PBBS fires up on
> 14.109.5, I often could continue to copy MT63 signals even though the
> pactor 3 station was much stronger.
Try it when the Pactor robot is 40 dB over S-9 - happens in a lot of
areas.
> Also, as you earlier alluded to,
> it is not a all or nothing arrangement. With TDMA, multiple stations
> can share the same channel, and with different chip codes (wider modes
> begin to look like spread spectrum) users can actually simulatanously
> share the channel (CDMA overlay).
You are not proving anything by touting these acronyms.
WINLINK looks NOTHING like spread spectrum.
> > Why do hams need to transmit multiple channels of audio all at once?
> > For an English and Spanish simulcast? :- )
> And what good is a baby? Point being, we are in a world that is in a
> digital convergence, and amateur radio should follow suite.
Suit.
> I can't
> say there wouldn't be conflict (there sure is now with the P3
> stations) but the proper means to address it is not to throw the baby
> out, but teach the baby how to properly co-exist. We will all be
> better off for it.
Fine - fine. Just don't dump a 20 kHz signal in our HF bands and
screw them up worse.
> I don't see the problem with the proposal, and am really suprised it
> is getting the negative play on the MT63 reflector.
Maybe you will figure out whey eventually.
Some of us still like to play on CW, SSB and AM as well as
digital and most of us feel like we don't need no stinkin' 20 kHz
digital lawn mower coming down the pike!
The WINLINK disaster has been a learning experience for all of us.
If you can convince me that we need HF bands full of 20 kHz digital
signals maybe I will come around.
For now, how about putting them all above 29.5 MHz?
de AF4K, Brian
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out Music Videos, Internet Radio, Artist Photos, Music News!
LAUNCH Music on Yahoo!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/wmKGzA/JARHAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
