"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
The "strawman designs" that Gary and I postulated did NOT contemplate
the use of SS across the whole band as an "underlay." The modulation was
completely different, with a fair amount of coding.

That's not my recollection at all but for absolute certain any type of
HF SS would require some bandwidth far in excess of the bandwidths
currently permissable under the regs or acceptable by the users of the
so-called legacy modes on HF. The inherent bandwidth characteristic of
SS has made it destructively non-compatible with the modes currently
in use in HF ham bands. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, ham HF SS
is a non-sequiter.


all sorts of simulated channel impairments into the system to make
copying
as hard as you want ... without having to trash the underlying, reliable
communications system." Still rejected.)

Exactly and none of it flew then and it never will.

Why? ... if it looks to the user EXACTLY as "traditional Morse" one would
not be able to tell the difference (and therefore should have no logical,
rational
reason for rejecting it).

Your term IF is the Achilles heel of your whole argument. We've been
down this road, i.e., the problem with logical/rational being the
primanry drivers in ham radio. Ham radio is not a commercial service
where logic is the driver. The standard issue ham is into ham radio
for it's recreational value and the rest flows from there.


they're neat electronic ping-pong games but IT AIN'T FRIGGING RADIO.
Nobody is gonna go play electronic ping-pong so that you and Coffman
can play band edge to band edge.

I *was* talking about RADIO ... a system that would communicate over
distances via radio ... just more reliably ... and THEN adding the
impariments
("challenge") at the receiving end to satisfy those who "like to dig the
weak
ones out of the noise/QRM."

Then you better find a like-minded programmer who has extensive
real-world actual experience with weak-signal DXing and contesting CW
and otherwise to write the code. You sure as hell are not qualified to
do that.

You're snapping around the edges of needing AI to pull off any such
code. We all know how easy that is (?!). IBM has a well-funded crew of
their comp sci & math geniuses and a mainfarme dedicated to
periodically trying to beat one human chess player's brain. And chess
is just a two-dimensional board game with rigid rules of play which
allows large chunks of time to make the decisions on each move. HF CW
contesting in particular has more dimensions than I can even start to
count and decsions are routinely made several times a second. Just for
openers. How ya gonna do it Carl? A bit of C++ and VB in a ham shack
PC? Yeah, right. Not even a decent pipe dream.

transmit data reliably over transcontinental distances ... with power
outputs on the order of 10 mW ... as an "underlay" to existing services
that don't even notice that they are there.

Times how many stations?

Quite a few, but to be honest I don't know the exact number (and if I
did, I couldn't say).

Bullet = Ducked

I notice that TAPR has given up trying to get spread spectrum on the
air. Nobody in TAPR cares enough about SS to work thru the bugs.
There's a loud statement about ham SS.

IMHO, TAPR's SS effort was doomed from the start by being overly
complex.

You're pretty good at that yourself.

Carl - wk3c

w3rv