Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
hardware.

GPS is the basis for most of the current NTP time servers.

http://www.ntp-time-server.com/gps-t...ime-server.htm


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 18, 7:44�am, Klystron wrote:
� �I am trying to convert "words per minute" into "bits pe
r second."
Bits per second, in turn, is APPROXIMATELY equal to baud, a common
measure of modem (or other means of data transmission) speed. I need to
quantify one factor: How many letters are in a "word?" If we assume that
there are 5 (five) letters to a word, my calculations look like this:

It has been common convention in wireline telegraphy to count "one
word"
as having 5 characters followed by a space. The origin of that seems
to be
that it was most advantageous for humans to use/remember while using
the Commercial Codes, a form of encipherment both to protect
information and to reduce the number of words in a telegram.
Bentley's
Commercial Code seems to have been the most used with 17 editions,
publishing Code Books for any business or government.

As a result of those Commercial Codes, actual cryptographic codes
also used 5 characters followed by a space, hence the term '5-letter
groups' in referring to a "word." By the time of WWII starting, the
cryptographic systems were more advanced and it was not possible
to tell one 'word' from another but it was common practice to send
encrypted text as 5-letter (or character) groups; the actual space in
clear text was determined by the null or space substitute in poly-
alphabetic rolling-key encryption codes. (reference: M-209 Code
Converter used in the field in Europe by US forces)

73, Len AF6AY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Klystron writes:

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

[...]

Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?


Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
(condensed from Part 97.1):

* emergency communications
* contribute to the advancement of the radio art
* advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
the art
* expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
* continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill

Perhaps I should clarify. When I asked the above question, I meant
specific technologies and examples of communications systems, not a
restatement of the general strategies of the Amateur Radio Service that
are enshrined in its Basis and Purpose. The Basis and Purpose
enumerates high-level goals, but does not specify the implementation
details, including the specific technologies.

I'm sure that we are all familiar with FCC Part 97.1, and restating it
really wasn't the answer that I was looking for. Could you please be
more specific?

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5zR26Pj0az779o4RAiqtAJ4003CD5KS18L4Ybt5bL//NfZKBFwCfV9Qg
9eRBs7HEqZzaMPPaM3IC4QY=
=UFaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In AF6AY writes:

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

Ahem...quibble mode on...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.

That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.

[...]

Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cook

The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
would always beat an SMS text message of the same length. See:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/16/3/?nc=1

Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.

Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5zJI6Pj0az779o4RAn+5AJ9ffyD9Wq/klqCmx9PlvGnKFKjYLwCeKjlV
Q9BjLTsT7hM/Hb6FRO7X4D4=
=ChL0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mar 23, 9:53�pm, Klystron wrote:
�Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
� �Wouldn't it make more sense to include
WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?

WWV and WWVB transmitters are at the same site in Fort Collins, CO. I
was there.

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?

Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.

Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
receiver.

The WWV system still has its uses. I suspect its cost is trivial
compared to other systems, too.

Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data,"
in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?


� �A single quantity, like time or location

What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"

� �Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND loca
tion or
course
AND speed.

The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.

There is probably no purpose for which Morse
can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other,
better suited languages
available.

Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.

When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.

Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.

There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers."

Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.

Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that
existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.

How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.

That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort
of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in
amateur radio.

The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.

But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by.
It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation.

When did it exist, and when did it end?

I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.

When and how did that happen, exactly? I see a lot of claims but
no specifics or history.

�The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.

What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.

My 1962 ARRL License Manual has the FCC rules for the Amateur
Radio Service, and at that time - 46 years ago - there were no
Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments on the HF bands, or
any VHF/UHF band above 2 meters. And the rules weren't new then.

OTOH, even today, data modes are prohibited from using the
voice subbands in the USA.

Do you consider a rules change that happened more than 46 years
ago to be "recently"?

I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions).

"Now" includes at least the past 46 years.

There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios.

Which costs practically nothing.

It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.

There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.

I don't think they will last long.

I think they will.

While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse
requirement for an
HF license.

Yes - because of the slowness of the FCC to change Part 97
after the treaty changed in 2003.

Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations.

Which countries? Please be specific.

How do you explain that?

I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.

By limiting 4th class JA hams to only worldwide amateurs-only bands,
interference to other services was prevented. By limiting 4th class
amateurs to very low power, and since Japan is an island nation,
interference to amateurs of other countries was prevented.

Nobody challenged Japan on it, either.

But Japan still requires a Morse Code test for at least some of its
higher-class amateur licenses. The USA does not.

To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.

But why? In 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm
Morse Code tests, but not 5 wpm. FCC said they would have waivered all
the tests except for the treaty. Same for the reduction of all license
classes to 5 wpm in 2000. Opposition to these changes did not stop
FCC.

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Some additional info about US subbands-by-mode, in reply to Klystron's
mention of exclusive Morse-code-only band segments.

In the following discussion, "modes" means "modes authorized for use
by amateurs on the specific amateur bands in question".

The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, voice and image modes on specific subbands, and data modes
wherever voice is not permitted. Morse Code has no exclusive subbands
at all,
and is rarely used in the 'phone subbands. (I've been an active ham
40+ years and never used Morse Code in an HF voice subband). These
regulations are descendants of those going back many decades, to times
when amateur operation on HF consisted of Morse Code, voice and
nothing else. (For example, HF RTTY operation by US hams was first
authorized in the late 1940s, but only 45.45 baud 5 level Baudot code
was allowed.)

A few years ago, ARRL proposed "Regulation By Bandwidth", which would
have separated the various modes by
the bandwidth of the signal rather than whether it was voice, data,
image, etc. For example, under the proposal,
any mode less than 500 Hz wide would be allowed in the 500 Hz and
wider subbands, regardless of whether it carried
voice, data, image, Morse Code or other information. There were also
proposed changes to where automatic and semi-automatic data-mode
stations could operate.

The proposal got an RM number and a comment period. The comments from
those interested were overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was
revised but to no avail; ARRL finally withdrew the proposal.

IMHO, the most common reasons for opposition that I saw reading the
comments were these (in no particular order):

1) 'Phone operators did not want any data modes in the 'phone
subbands.
2) "Robot" (unattended) digital stations should be confined to small
subbands.
3) Concern that amateurs would have to be able to measure the actual
occupied bandwidth of their transmitted signals or be subject to
violation notices and complaints. Older equipment and hams who could
not afford spectrum analyzers would be forced off the air seemed to be
a common fear.
4) AM voice would be limited to 9 kHz bandwidth and was essentially
"grandfathered", but other modes could not
exceed 3.5 kHz on most bands
5) The existing rules did not need changing.

The FCC did act on an earlier "refarming" proposal by ARRL, and
widened the 'phone/image subbands on some of the HF bands at the end
of 2006. However, FCC went far beyond the ARRL recommendations in the
amount of change. This effectively reduced the spectrum space
available for data modes on those bands, since they could not be used
where 'phone is allowed. The most radical change was on the 80/75
meter bands.

About the same time as the "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal, a group
of less than a dozen amateurs
calling itself the "Communications Think Tank" (CTT) proposed the even
more radical change of eliminating subbands-by-mode completely, and
simply specifying a maximum signal bandwidth for each band.

This proposal also got an RM number and a comment period, but the
comments were even more solidly against it than against "Regulation by
Bandwidth". The opposition was so overwhelming that CTT also withdrew
its proposal.

The point of all this is that ARRL and others have made proposals to
fundamentally change Part 97 in ways that would
favor the use of data modes, and the US amateur community has
repeatedly and strongly opposed those proposals.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, ...

My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 24, 1:41 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, ...

My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.

Hello Cecil!

You are correct, sir! Thanks!

While it could be argued that the five channels known as "60 meters"
are not be an "HF amateur band" in the sense that, say, 20 meters is,
they are HF and only upper-sideband voice is permitted to US amateurs
there.

So amend the above to read:

"The current US regulation of the HF/MF amateur bands permits Morse
Code on all frequencies except the five USB-voice-only channels known
as '60 meters', ..."


73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY

Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.


Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.


My understanding is that ntpd can handle that problem quite well. An
OPTIMAL setup would involve 1 computer per radio, each acting as a radio
controller (also called a strata 0 server). You could have a radio for
WWVB or WWVH, a second radio that is set to scan the WWV frequencies and
a third "radio" for GPS. Those 3 computers would connect to a fourth
computer that would act as a strata 1 server. The result would be a time
server that is as accurate as if it were connected to other ntp servers
via the Internet. Such an arrangement is sometimes used by firms that
need metrology-grade time service on a secured, internal LAN.
By the way, do not be put off by the expense of the four (or more)
computers described above. According the ntp documentation that I have
read, they need to have at least 100 MHz processor speeds for optimum
accuracy, but there is no benefit in going much above 100 MHz. Thus, a
pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.

--
Klystron

wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?


Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.


See my response to Phil Kane. A computer running ntpd can get
metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use radio
only, Internet only or both.


Then, there is the matter of GPS, which has a time capability
that is incidental to its navigation function.


GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
receiver.


In or near the continental US, that is not an issue.


The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.


No, it's an incidental benefit. It does not require the transmission
of additional information.


There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.


There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a
machine language where there isn't a choice of other,
better suited languages available.


Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.


I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.


When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.


Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.


Utter hogwash. It started out as a network of Universities and a few
defense contractors' laboratories. Much of the funding came from the
individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary. Besides, after the
Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet
(with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the
small slice of that pie.


There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers."


Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.


Again, that is preposterous nonsense.


Until recently, there wasn't even any formal schooling available,
except on the sort of machinery that existed only within the
Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.


How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.


The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1994. At that
time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities that
covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics. You had to learn
it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
architecture.


That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of
determined, driven advancement of technology that was once
seen in amateur radio.


The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.


The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a violation
and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that was long
ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.


[...]
The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.


What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.


The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voice. Until
fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data." There was some RTTY,
but it was never a major issue. For many decades, the traffic in the HF
ham bands was SSB voice or CW. A pie chart would show a very small slice
labeled "other."


[...]
It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.


There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.


What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is
that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there
are very many first time key buyers today.


[...]
I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.


So you admit that different countries interpreted their treaty
obligations in different ways?


[...]
To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.

[...]

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?


I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research for you, but
there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
modified over a period of years. No-code HF licenses came about over
time in a number of countries. The US was either one of the last to drop
code or was dead last to do so.

--
Klystron