| |
VE2HAR > MT63 10.03.05 14:41l 262 Lines 9732 Bytes #-7497 (0) @ WW
BID : 51889SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: [MT63] 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0ACH<DB0PKE<DB0RES<ON0AR<VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/1205z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41038 $:51889sentto
All future e-mails from Jeff King will be deleted and unread at this=20
location. I will not waste my time reading such ignorant personal=20
attacks.
On 9 Mar 2005 at 23:35, Jeff King wrote:
> Brian:
>=20
> I am suggesting amateurs obey the rules, what a concept, something
> you'd rather whine about or stack layer upon layer of regulation to
> try and bandaid the problem, when in fact, the problem is extremely
> simple. If pactor 3 stations are stepping on your PSK31 QSO, they are
> in fact (potentially) committing a rule violation.=20
>=20
> I bet your one of these anti gun nuts also, right? Guns kill people,
> right? We need government to protect us.
>=20
> Fact of the matter is, all I am preaching is personal responsibility.
> If I don't bother you, why do you wish to lessen the value of the
> hobby for me?
>=20
> As to your question:
>=20
> >Would you like your next HF SSB contact to get stepped on by a 100
> >kHz wide S9 digital signal that swamps the entire sub-band?=20
>=20
> That is what, a 30:1 ratio in bandwidth? How about my 50hz PSK31
> contact get stepped on by a 3khz wide S9 digital signal that swamps
> the entire sub-band?
>=20
> Point being, your trying to connect two distinctly different actions,
> just because you can use 3khz, 6 khz or 100khz, doesn't mean some
> level of personal responsibility can be ignored... and rules already
> exist to enforce this level of personal responsibility (malicious
> interference and good amateur practice).=20
>=20
> Like all big government advocates, you feel that new laws must fix
> laws that already exist. I'm simply suggesting that amateurs can be
> trusted to self police, and in the few instances that they can't, laws
> are already on the books.
>=20
> >It's a man with a poor argument who resorts to immature name-
> >calling,=20
>=20
> Don't confuse documented fact, with name calling, Yes, these same
> chicken little tactics where used when amateur radio transitioned from
> spark to continous wave mode, when amateur radio transition from AM to
> SSB. History is in fact a good predictier of the future.=20
>=20
> >and "me too" remarks, Jeff.
>=20
> You mean that unsolicited personal attack on John Champa you forwarded
> me in private e-mail? I thought that was kind of immature as the man
> was not able to defend himself.
>=20
>=20
> -Jeff wb8wka
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >That is
> >in =A0effect what you are suggesting and I guarantee you that the vast
> >majority of hams will reject your absurd suggestion of unlimited
> >bandwidths right now.
>=20
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:29:35 -0500, Brian Carling wrote:
> >I am sure a very small number of individuals think that it is a
> >bright idea to implement a 20 kHz digital mode on HF now.
> >
> >It's a man with a poor argument who resorts to immature name-
> >calling, and "me too" remarks, Jeff.
> >
> >Let's hear some technical substance to your claims instead of the
> >inane, rude remarks.
> >
> >Would you like your next HF SSB contact to get stepped on by a 100
> >kHz wide S9 digital signal that swamps the entire sub-band? That is
> >in =A0effect what you are suggesting and I guarantee you that the vast
> >majority of hams will reject your absurd suggestion of unlimited
> >bandwidths right now.
> >
> >Maybe things will change with future digitized audio modes, but you
> >are getting WAY ahead of yourself with these outlandish suggestions.
> >Get the technical part right and skip the playground talk.
> >
> >For now the digital and analog modes must function together and we
> >need someone far brighter than you to steer us through the
> >transition.
> >
> >On 9 Mar 2005 at 14:03, jeff@aerodata.net blathered:
> >
> >>This is just an example of what is wrong with this hobby today. I
> >>take the exact opposite approach... the only thing that should limit
> >>our bandwidth is good amateur practice. I realize many in our
> >>society want bigger goverment (i.e. more regulations), but the
> >>spirit of amateur radio, that is, the advancement of the state of
> >>the art, should take priority over these vested special interests
> >>that want to retain the status qou.
> >>
> >>Anyways, these "chicken little" arguements AF4K puts forth are
> >>tired... as a teenager I used to collect old radio magazines, and
> >>many of the points he put forth where also expressed by the SPARK
> >>operators as this new continuous wave mode became popular. We got
> >>through the state of the art advancing then, and I don't see the
> >>case were we won't here.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Brian,
> >>>
> >>>Well yes and no. =A0What the HSMM is suggesting is that you allow up
> >>>to 20 KHz signals. =A0But we're taking about 56KBPs throughput that
> >>>would allow one or more voice channels actually multi-mode all on
> >>>one signal.
> >>>
> >>>You might see 56KBPs data but it would only be on-the-air for a
> >>>short time. The "channel" would be shared.
> >>>
> >>>Right now we have MT63 at 200 WPM thoughput on a 2 KHz wide
> >>>bandpass at a -5 dB SNR on a poor CCIR channel. =A0But we really need
> >>>to push 800-1200 WPM at the same signal level. =A0I don't see doing
> >>>that with less than a 6 KHz channel even exploiting some of the new
> >>>OFDM type modulation protocols being developed.
> >>>
> >>>How many CW QSOs running at 20 WPM will it take to produce 1200 WPM
> >>>error free copy at a signal level that MT63 can copy? =A0These are
> >>>signal levels that even the best CW operator can't copy a signal
> >>>at. So the answer is that NO number of CW QSOs can produce the
> >>>throughput of 1200 BPS, near error free, at a -5 dB SNR on a poor
> >>>CCIR channel.
> >>>
> >>>All this =A0IS =A0possible if we are willing to step out of the box.
> >>>
> >>>AND the new modes that will develop will be FAR SUPERIOR to Pactor
> >>>III or anything being done today on HF.
> >>>
> >>>We're also looking at doing much of this work using a computer
> >>>sound card so separate controller hardware is not needed.
> >>>
> >>>73,
> >>>
> >>>Walt DuBose/K5YFW Asst Chairman ARRL HSMM WG
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Quoting Brian Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>On 8 Mar 2005 at 19:11, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I don't think the digital signals they want are 20 kHz wide!
> >>>>
> >>>>Want to bet on that?
> >>>>
> >>>>There IS in fact a proposal out now for a digiotal mode that IS 20
> >>>>kHz wide for high speed data transefer on HF ham bands. (as if
> >>>>Cra... =A0er, I mean Pactor is not jamming the HF bands enough
> >>>>already!)
> >>>>
> >>>>Here it is:
> >>>>
> >>>>On Janauary 19, 2005, John Champa, K8OCL,ARRL Chairman, High
> >>>>Speed Multimedia Networks Working Group, issued the Technology
> >>>>Task Force report to the ARRL Board of Directors, which includes
> >>>>the following:
> >>>>
> >>>>"At a minimum, 20 kHz wide emissions should be allowed in the
> >>>>following segments:
> >>>>
> >>>>3.58 - 3.725 MHz 7.035 - 7.125 MHz 14.065 - 14.15 MHz 21.08
> >>>>- 21.2 MHz 29 - 29.7 MHz"
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously, a *single* HSMM transmission, 20 KHz wide, could
> >>>>totally wipe out all PSK31, MFSK16, RTTY, and many CW and DX
> >>>>operations on 80m, 40m, and 20m, where they are now used
> >>>>worldwide. Dozens of CW QSOS could be obliterated within one 20
> >>>>kHz swath. NOT a good idea at all!
> >>>>
> >>>>We have never seen such a lack of concern and compassion for the
> >>>>majority of radio amateur activities as evidenced by the ARRL
> >>>>Committee on HSMM and ARRL support for Winlink's attempted
> >>>>domination of the HF frequencies, in both cases, to sacrifice the
> >>>>hobby on HF for everyone else in order to favor a very small
> >>>>special interest group.
> >>>>
> >>>>I can only hope that they really are coming to their senses at the
> >>>>top level of leadership, but this is cause for alarm. JIm Haynie
> >>>>says that they are going to have a new band plan by July. I hope
> >>>>it is a workable one that averyone can live with. The
> >>>>Winlink/Pactor mess will hopefully get reined in by this.
> >>>>
> >>>>OK back to some fun CW contacts now, and a little less grumbling!
> >>>>=A073 de AF4K
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >>>>--------------------~-->=A0Tired of hearing the same songs over and
> >>>>over? Listen to Internet Radio! Skip songs. Click to listen to
> >>>>LAUNCHcast!
> >>>>http://us.click.yahoo.com/.mKGzA/HARHAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>- -~->=A0
> >>>>
> >>>><<=A0Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>=A0
> >>>>
> >>>>- The MT63 Reflector - MT63@egroups.com
> >>>>
> >>>>(To unsubscribe. send email to MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
> >>>>
> >>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________ Linlink mailing
> >>>list Linlink@wetnet.net http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=20
Create your own customized LAUNCHcast Internet Radio station.=20
Rate your favorite Artists, Albums, and Songs. Skip songs. Click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r4oloD/xA5HAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->=20
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
=20
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/
=20
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
