"U Know Who" wrote in
message ...

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:


"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news:jchtt015vv23ohkgo426pto6drp2ssqeo5@4ax .com...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have
is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my
observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough
that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be
made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


The only thing DX has to do with DX splatter is that if "DX" isn't
running you wouldn't hear it.

Probably, but if you have a 100 radio's and a third of
them are running their modulation clipped, then you
will hear it even worse, correct?

It would only be worse because now you can hear the 100 radios.

Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the
normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation.


Correct

DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther.

Correct. When you have a lot more radio's trying to talk
on one freq, don't you think that it will now increase your
adjacent channel splatter?


Only because you now can hear more radios. skip doesn't cause
splatter.

Take the same 100 radios that were causing splatter when the skip was
running (all stations running S9). Now move them all so they are
local to you (again all stations running S9). From what you have
said you believe the splatter is going to decrease ?

Well. It has been my experience that when skips
running, you will have more incidents of adjacent
channel splatter than when it's not. I'm sure "Skip"
is not causing it, but it sure does "Heighten" it.

Landshark

It doesnt heighten it assclowns think they need major watts to talk skip,
so you are hearing hundreds more amp bozos with thier splatter boxes
cranked up the reason it is heightened is because they are giving you a
strong enough signal to splatter your reciever, listen carefully I said
it in a post about 1 day ago, take a guy in your area in a mobile running
a 1kw class c splatter box, he is giving you 10+ on the meter and tearing
your radio up, as he drives further away he is still using the splatter
box, why isnt he bleeding over as bad or at all now? Because he isnt
overloading the front end of your reciever now his signal strength is
down..

Very good George! I knew you had it in you.

Hey Randy, staying warm? I won't say that Geo's analogy is wrong.
Again, If you have one radio splattering ok, but when you have dozens of
radio's splattering, wouldn't the overload be worse than with just one
radio? Of course, then wouldn't that say that DX is helping the splatter
happen?

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.

No, it doesn't. Dx is simply an enhancement of the atmosphere which
allows a signal to propagate farther then normal line of sight. It
does not add "splatter" to an otherwise clean signal.

Ah, that explains everything. So when a normal channel
has maybe 5 to 10 operators, add another 100 because of
skip conditions, of course there will be some running
clipped & mod radio's, you don't think that enhances
the splatter?

Not to any one single radio signal. You are confusing heterodyning
with splatter.


So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

We've gone over this before Dave, your wrong.


I have referenced two part 95 rules which address both the issue of
permissible non-voice transmissions and also prohibited transmissions
which include devices which are used for entertainment and amusement.

Conversely there are no rules which specifically allow either a roger
beep (and other noise makers) or echo boxes. Since neither are defined
under permissible non-voice transmissions, it can reasonably be
concluded that these devices would be considered amusement or
entertainment devices, and as such prohibited.

You tell me I'm wrong, then please prove it by providing the rules
which allow these devices.

If I showed you CB radio's being sold BRAND NEW
with roger beeps, will that do?

It will tell me that there are a few companies which are willing to
play loose and fast with the rules, until they are spanked for it.
Galaxy radios are notorious for catering to the illegal freeband
market. It's no surprise that they push the limit. Knowing that the
FCC is not all that interested in small CB rule issues, they take the
gamble that they won't be judged. They're probably right....


There is still nothing in the rules which allow for devices that can
be considered entertainment.


Why Dave, I get ton's of entertainment from my
Cobra 146, but it's not illegal. Again, you are grasping
for straws on the roger beep, it's legal. Now the echo crap,
even if it was legal, it should be outlawed.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Landshark


--
That does suck..sometimes you're the
windshield..sometimes you're the bug.

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

"U Know Who" wrote in
message ...

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:


"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Lancer" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news:jchtt015vv23ohkgo426pto6drp2ssqeo5@4a x.com...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have
is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my
observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough
that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be
made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


The only thing DX has to do with DX splatter is that if "DX" isn't
running you wouldn't hear it.

Probably, but if you have a 100 radio's and a third of
them are running their modulation clipped, then you
will hear it even worse, correct?

It would only be worse because now you can hear the 100 radios.

Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the
normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation.


Correct

DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther.

Correct. When you have a lot more radio's trying to talk
on one freq, don't you think that it will now increase your
adjacent channel splatter?


Only because you now can hear more radios. skip doesn't cause
splatter.

Take the same 100 radios that were causing splatter when the skip was
running (all stations running S9). Now move them all so they are
local to you (again all stations running S9). From what you have
said you believe the splatter is going to decrease ?

Well. It has been my experience that when skips
running, you will have more incidents of adjacent
channel splatter than when it's not. I'm sure "Skip"
is not causing it, but it sure does "Heighten" it.

Landshark

It doesnt heighten it assclowns think they need major watts to talk
skip,
so you are hearing hundreds more amp bozos with thier splatter boxes
cranked up the reason it is heightened is because they are giving you a
strong enough signal to splatter your reciever, listen carefully I said
it in a post about 1 day ago, take a guy in your area in a mobile
running
a 1kw class c splatter box, he is giving you 10+ on the meter and
tearing
your radio up, as he drives further away he is still using the splatter
box, why isnt he bleeding over as bad or at all now? Because he isnt
overloading the front end of your reciever now his signal strength is
down..

Very good George! I knew you had it in you.

Hey Randy, staying warm? I won't say that Geo's analogy is wrong.
Again, If you have one radio splattering ok, but when you have dozens of
radio's splattering, wouldn't the overload be worse than with just one
radio? Of course, then wouldn't that say that DX is helping the splatter
happen?

Landshark

No, the number of radios makes no difference. You'll hear the strongest.
What does matter is signal strength and selectivity. If the signal level is
low enough, you don't have splatter. The DX is only allowing the signal to
propagate farther, with less loss than normal. It won't make the signal
stronger. What you have to remember is, in the very small distances we are
talking about (thousands of miles), that radio waves do not degrade much in
what is almost a line of sight path. I realize the Earth is curved, but so
is the atmosphere, and at times it makes an excellent mirror. So, you have
basically taken normal attenuation for over the horizon and ground loss out
of the equation. That's why the signals can splatter with skip.

Oh, and it's in the 70's here now. Where the hell was winter?

"Landshark" wrote:

__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

Hold still while I get my snag rig ready, any choice in colors?

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

Careful, click click is considered amusement and
you microphone would then be illegal :P

Landshark

Reckon a Browning ping with a roger beep is over-kill?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:15:34 GMT, Lancer wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:56:21 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:28 GMT, Lancer wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:40:30 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
N3CVJ said
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.

It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.


You may not hear anything on the next channel because the signal may
not be strong enough or because of "selective fading" . Splatter is
caused by the modulation, it may or may not be intensified by skip.
But it is not caused by "skip" If you had a constant carrier(no
modulation), skip or not, you wouldn't have splatter.

He probably thinks that FM won't skip either......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Who?

The person who thinks skip causes an otherwise clean signal to
splatter.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip

BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a
legitimate case for contesting the election.

Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But
it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession'
speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see
the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get
another chance at a job he doesn't even want.

Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand
recount she stated publically that she would accept the result
regardless of the victor.

OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself
just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a
mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then
came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single
complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by
a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for
demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get
legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be
decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now
and for the very same reason.

So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully
support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite
governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to
preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just
being a crybaby a-la Gore.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

N3CVJ:
The person who thinks skip causes an

otherwise clean signal to splatter.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

You are the *only* person to mention such a monster.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote:

__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

Hold still while I get my snag rig ready, any choice in colors?

LOL!!! just use a good quality beer, that hooks me
every time.

Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip

BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a
legitimate case for contesting the election.

This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of
fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted,
with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening
again.



Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But
it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession'
speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see
the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get
another chance at a job he doesn't even want.

Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand
recount she stated publically that she would accept the result
regardless of the victor.

OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself
just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a
mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then
came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single
complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by
a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for
demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get
legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be
decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now
and for the very same reason.

So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully
support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite
governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to
preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just
being a crybaby a-la Gore.

It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud
your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant
how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a
good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been
the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those
discrepancies are resolved.

Dave
"Sandbagger"